User talk:Doglover.Coton

June 2025

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Coton de Tulear, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i did thru the sublink. I am new here. Is there a way to recreate what i wrote so i can add he approprate citations? Doglover.Coton (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Coton de Tulear, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Therapy dog. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the citation source. I just hit publish on the sublink before i added it. Just a novice move. Thanks. I will be more attentive to the order in which i add things 2601:19B:781:1680:7939:FD5D:50B3:8F7A (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits continue to be a problem. External URLs only belong in the body when they are part of a citation between <ref> </ref> tags. If appropriate, they may be added to an External links section at the end of the article. They never go in a See also section, which is only for links to related Wikipedia articles. Also, the purpose of references (citations) is to indicate the source that supports the information; they aren't used simply to insert some company or organization's official website. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Nebraska Holocaust Memorial

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Nebraska Holocaust Memorial, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between sources and text

Wikipedia articles should summarize what is written in independent reliable sources about a subject. The citations tell the reader what the writer's source was for specific text. You've been adding text on specific subjects, but citing sources that are about some tangential mention in the text rather than the subject of the article. In SC Geier House, you added descriptions of the architecture style with sources about that style, none of which mention that house. In Shark River Park, you added content about wheelchair accessibility, cited to sources about wheelchair accessibility in general, with no mention of that park. That isn't how it works. If you want to include a description of SC Geier House's architecture, you need a source that actually talks about that house. Same with wheelchairs and the park; you need a source that talks about accessibility at Shark River Park. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was adding info I thought the reader would find useful. THanks for clarification. The SC GEIER HOUSE had no citations so I was trying to give any info I could find.

Thanks for the constructive tone and info! Doglover.Coton (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you trying to add useful sources, but you're still not grasping the relationship between the text and sources. For example, in Nebraska Holocaust Memorial, you cited a source about the number killed in the Holocaust for the sentences Within the Memorial is a set of stones that surround the "Star of Remembrance" monument. These stones represent the 11 million people who were murdered by the Nazis and their allies. What a useful source should verify is that the stones in the monument around the Star of Remembrance represent those killed. The source you added doesn't do that, it doesn't even mention the subject of the article.

For the sentences Within the "Sea of Stones" are bricks with the names of individuals murdered in the Holocaust. Other sections of the Memorial include the "Wall of Remembrance" with pictures from the Holocaust and a Butterfly Garden in memory of the one and a half million children murdered in the Holocaust, you didn't add a source that verifies the bricks, the wall with pictures, or the butterfly garden; you added a source about the number of children killed and doesn't say anything about this memorial.

When looking at sources to add a citation to an article, you need to look at the context and purpose of the text. The sources need to be relevant to the subject of the article.

You also removed one of the useful sources from the article because the URL is no longer live. Please don't do that. In most instances, an archived version of the source can be found. You can learn how to do that at WP:DEADLINK. I've restored that ref with an archived link. I also removed the two sources that you added that are not about the memorial. Schazjmd (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will modify accordingly. FYI, it was my family that actually created and implemented this memorial so I have first hand knowledge of the whole thing. I’m just trying to format it appropriately. Doglover.Coton (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I have a reference but it is an original document (from the artist) but not published, how can I reference this? If you don’t mind helping …. Doglover.Coton (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUBLISHED explains: Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form. The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an accessible copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the copy to be accessible via the Internet.

If the artist's document isn't available to the public, it can't be cited. Just posting it online yourself isn't adequate, because you're not a reputable publisher; anyone can fake anything and post it online. That's why self-published books and personal websites are seldom acceptable as sources. Schazjmd (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do question why I’m the statement about the 11 million shouldn’t be referenced. What prevents somebody from making a statement like 2 million victims if it is not verifiable through citation! Doglover.Coton (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The number killed isn't the point of the text. The number itself could be removed from the sentence without changing the value of the sentence: These stones represent the people who were murdered by the Nazis and their allies. Schazjmd (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello, I'm R0paire-wiki. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Nebraska Holocaust Memorial have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Take a look at our guidelines about external links. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Trip Advisor not WP:RS. R0paire 02:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Edward Zorinsky. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this be vandalism? Referring to Sen Zorinsky as “A Jew” has a pejorative tone and it is more accurate to describe him as a person of the Jewish Faith, Doglover.Coton (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, please use the US census when adding census data to US city articles, per WP:USCITIES#Demographics. --Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]