User talk:Zigzig20s: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Tag: contentious topics alert
Line 31: Line 31:
:::::[[User:Magnolia677]] and [[User:doncram]]: The Somerset Plantation may still have been a thing in [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bo3kAAAAMAAJ&q=%22somerset+plantation%22+louisiana&dq=%22somerset+plantation%22+louisiana&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-oozXpf7NAhWqCsAKHRVBC8YQ6AEIITAB 1951]. Such a shame Google Books won't let us read the article...[[User:Zigzig20s|Zigzig20s]] ([[User talk:Zigzig20s#top|talk]]) 01:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Magnolia677]] and [[User:doncram]]: The Somerset Plantation may still have been a thing in [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bo3kAAAAMAAJ&q=%22somerset+plantation%22+louisiana&dq=%22somerset+plantation%22+louisiana&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-oozXpf7NAhWqCsAKHRVBC8YQ6AEIITAB 1951]. Such a shame Google Books won't let us read the article...[[User:Zigzig20s|Zigzig20s]] ([[User talk:Zigzig20s#top|talk]]) 01:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Magnolia677]] and [[User:doncram]]:Feel free to help me expand [[John Perkins (planter)]].[[User:Zigzig20s|Zigzig20s]] ([[User talk:Zigzig20s#top|talk]]) 05:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Magnolia677]] and [[User:doncram]]:Feel free to help me expand [[John Perkins (planter)]].[[User:Zigzig20s|Zigzig20s]] ([[User talk:Zigzig20s#top|talk]]) 05:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''

'''Please carefully read this information:'''

The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2|here]].

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->

Revision as of 06:35, 25 July 2016


Hi there. I went looking for some photos and found an article for Col. James Drane House. I'll still look for a photo. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced stubs?

Hi there. I have been hated for my creating short NRHP stub articles, and I am sympathetic to editors wanting to create short stubs if they want to. On one level perhaps it is better for me. But hey, this creation of Roseland (Ferriday, Louisiana), is really minimal! (I happen to be seeing multiple creations like this because they link to a page I created, so I get notices.) And, I find it misleading. In the edit summary you assert you have created a referenced stub, and in the article you give a link to a NRHP nomination document with your reporting you accessed it on July 18, 2016. But you did not access it, there is no nomination document there, right? So it seems false, and misleading to local editors who may arrive later and believe that there once was a source available there. I don't think this is right, and I sort of think you should return to any like this and strike the "accessdate" and give an edit summary that is clear about this.

Or do you have the documents in hand somehow, and are you going to develop them, or what am I not getting? Cheers, --doncram 00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:doncram: I accessed the weblink on that date. Otherwise I would cite the PDF, not the weblink. I'd like to expand each stub with more references, or encourage others to do it if they can find the right books. I'm working on John Perkins (planter) and he may have owned some of those plantations. As always on Wikipedia, this is a work in progress...Zigzig20s (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Magnolia677 and User:doncram: Let me know if you can figure out more about his Somerset Plantation. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You probably already have found this summary about Perkins' papers, but you have to go to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to read them. Summary mentions Cottonwood Plantation in Ellis County, Texas...nothing at National Register of Historic Places listings in Ellis County, Texas jumps out though. --doncram 01:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We could create it if there are sufficient sources. It does not necessarily have to be listed. Sometimes, plantations were razed and built upon, or simply abandoned. I'm not sure why UNC does this--it looks like censorship.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The UNC link is about his son, by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thanks for your quick reply. I get that it can be useful to work on multiple related pages at once, and find that sources on one work for the other, etc. That has worked for me when working on articles about architects or sites linked by having the same architect. (I just checked and there are no John Perkins showing up in the NRIS architects/builders/engineers field for any NRHP places, unfortunately.) But this is not yet showing any promise, you are not turning up any MPS documents or any other sources this way, AFAICT.
Quick Q1: Did you really access the weblink, i mean is it really your source to say the building was built in 1842, or is your source NRIS from the infobox generator? (If the latter, I think that should be credited as the source...) Q2: And you do know that the significant date might not be a built date, right? It could be some other kind of significant date, like the date a cemetery on the site was started. Q3: And I have wondered, about what shows on NPS weblink, does "Date Published: 10/10/1985" always mean the place was registered on that date? --doncram 00:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whenever I cite a weblink, I visit/double-check it first. The Elkman reference does not lead to the correct weblink for some reason. I just leave it there because it comes with the tool, which is useful for the infobox (especially for the map).Zigzig20s (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SS Arctic, which took down Wm Perkins, oh well.
Okay... By the way I almost started editing a batch of old stub Louisiana articles today, but chose not to because NRHP documents seem not available for the sample few I searched for, so I refocused onto another state instead. --doncram 00:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In poorer states like Louisiana or Mississippi, there isn't always all the information we need online, but I think that is exactly why we need to create stubs and hopefully encourage residents to expand those pages by visiting their local libraries and finding the right books to cite. I wish the Wikipedia Foundation did more to encourage everyone to take an interest in their local histories, by providing free photography courses for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Magnolia677 and User:doncram: The Somerset Plantation may still have been a thing in 1951. Such a shame Google Books won't let us read the article...Zigzig20s (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Magnolia677 and User:doncram:Feel free to help me expand John Perkins (planter).Zigzig20s (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33