User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 22

Nomination of 27–29 Fountain Alley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 27–29 Fountain Alley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27–29 Fountain Alley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Melcous (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Buildings

Greg, as you have noted above, you appear to be focusing your energy on creating articles about places on the National Register of Historic Places for California. And you appear to be proceeding on the assumption that being on this register in and of itself makes a building notable for wikipedia's purposes. I do not believe this is necessarily the case. Please see WP:NBUILDING which says buildings may be notable due to their historic or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. In others words, I believe you are continuing to create too many articles without clearly demonstrating notability. Please slow down and consider only creating an article if you can meet this high standard of significant coverage in independent sources. Melcous (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me give you one example to start with: you created 27–29 Fountain Alley which on the face of it might look like a well referenced article. It currently has 9 sources. However, when I look closely at those sources, what I find is this:

1. entry on the register
2. entry on a list
3. entry on a list
4. newspaper clipping saying the place will be built
5. one sentence in a book
6. list of tenant in the building in a directory of places to eat
7. news article with a short mention of the redevelopment of area, but no mention of this specific building
8. primary document about redevelopment project
9. entry on a list

In other words, none of these sources provide significant coverage about this building. I'm guessing this is not the only article with these issues. Melcous (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The 1st citation for 27–29 Fountain Alley includes a PDF that is a multi page description from the NPGallery Digital Asset Management System. This source was well written by a third party and reliable representative of the Department of Parks and Recreation. This documentation is a reliable source and it fully documents the text in the article. I am sorry that it was not clear in the citation as you need to click on a link within the document. I've updated the URL for citation #3 so it is going directly to the document. Please review again here or in the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That is the primary document about the building and its entry on the register. It is not an independent (or third party) source that provides significant coverage - that would be someone else (e.g. a historian or architect) writing about the building and its significance in some other place (e.g. book, journal article etc). Melcous (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

If you look at this citation: "National Register Information System – Fountain Alley (#82002265)". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. November 2, 2013. Retrieved 2023-12-10. it is the standard citation used by the National Register Of Historic Places, which is an independent third-party source. Greg Henderson (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

What I found troubling is making the basis for notability based on raw text of application form and citation that is extensive based on the application forms themselves. Graywalls (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There are other citations in the article. This one is the official one provided by the National Parks and Recreation Department. Greg Henderson (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, who are you suggesting is the independent third-party here? It troubles me that you still don't seem to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. As for the other citations, as I have listed above, none of them provide significant coverage. I'm fairly confident that if this article is proposed for AfD, it will not pass this test unless far better sourcing can be found. But the bigger issue is all the other articles that you have and are creating using the same misguided understanding of what makes something notable.Melcous (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is my analysis:

• Primary source This is the historical study that was done for the building. Rather long and rather extensive.
• Secondary source Clicking on the NRHP number in the Infobox will bring up the secondary source information presented by the National Register of Historic Places, which is part of Wikipedia's Portal:National Register of Historic Places. This includes listings on the state-county-city levels as well.
• So, I have tried to include all the sources that will pass WP:GNG, and do not see any reason to place a Notability tag on the Roma Bakery article.

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. The links you have included here Greg as "primary source" and "secondary source" are exactly the same. Clicking on the link in the article's infobox takes me to the exact same source. Again, how on earth is this an independent third party writing about the subject of the article? Melcous (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the URL were not correct.

The correct one for the secondary source is here, which sould take you to the actual National Park Service website, that lists the digital assets and secondary source information, e.g. National Register Information System ID: 82002265; Criteria used to demonstrate criteria to be registered in to NRHP. This is all coming from NRHP, which is the secondary source that is "third-party" and "independent sources". Greg Henderson (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

And yet again, that is the exact same link. Greg I'm sorry to say but all these back and forths with you are exhausting, and your frequent errors like this do not help. Melcous (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Not ture.

• The primary source is https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/2d4bc3c7-4a12-420f-a99d-47c039a18e3b here and the
• secondary source is https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/82002265 here.

Greg Henderson (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, those are two different links (above were all the same - you can check). Howeever, the first link is to the pdf nomination form, the second link is to a page on which that pdf nomination form appears as well as the metadata. They are not independent of one another. Melcous (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

If you click on the link in the infobox (#82002265) or on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Clara County, California it takes to what the National Park Service provides as the secondary source. On this page the NPS provides all the documentation that they used in their peer-review and acceptance criteria. By using this information we can write an article and demonstrate WP:NBUILDING guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

AnAfD discussion worth looking at. The building articles you created that could qualify as notable should have people aggrandizing contents and cruft/trivia purged. Like "this house was one of the first houses in the village, along with Jane, John, Adam and Eve's houses." Graywalls (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, for this discussion one fhe result was to keep‎. Below are some takeaways:

• Clicking on the NRHP number in the infobox, will bring up the historical study that was done for the building. Long and rather extensive.
• The reason buildings on the NRHP are considered notable is that the National Park Service requires that information in order to list a property, and their standards are higher than WP:GNG.

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant to say that aggrandizing contents about people and trivia like those I mentioned above should not be present so NRHP is not used as an anchor to make a coat rack article to serve as a peg to hang aggrandizing boastful contents about various common people or your extended, family members or the building's current tenant. Graywalls (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we/I should not post "aggrandizing boastful contents". That is not my intention at all. It is to report what is stated in the NRHP documentation. Where I fail at that, it is not intention and is fair game to remove. Thanks for your comments. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree with your comment that buildings on the NRHP are considered notable is that the National Park Service requires that information in order to list a property, and their standards are higher than WP:GNG. We don't use an outside organisation's guidelines for notability here, we use Wikpiedia's, regardless of your personal opinion on which one has "higher standards". I would also note from searching the table here that this property is clearly marked as of local significance only, not of state, national or international significance. That to me is actually a lower standard than wikipedia uses. Melcous (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Clara County, California is intended to be a complete list of the properties and districts for Santa Clara County, California, United States. There are 119 properties and districts listed. The majority already have Wikipedia pages written for them. They are notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. Significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources have established thier notability. If this is not the case a tag should be placed on the article to give editors a chance to improve it. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Charles King Van Riper

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 00:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Frederick C. Franck has been accepted

Frederick C. Franck, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Seawolf35 ^T--C 22:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

His dedication to public service extended to the legislative realm when he was elected to the California State Assembly in 1871, and his effective performance led to his reelection in 1873., sourced to http://www.joincalifornia.com/candidate/12287. This writing doesn't reflect the improvements you have been discussing on this talk page. – bradv 22:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bradv WP:NPOL seemed to be met with that draft and it is good enough, not perfect by any means though. Seawolf35 ^T--C 22:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it meets the bar for acceptance so I have no problems with your decision. But the writing and sourcing here are subpar, and if you read through this talk page and its archives, you'll understand why I was expecting better. – bradv 23:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bradv Thanks, although I have little desire to go through talk page archives and look into user conduct right now, I will keep that in mind for the future. Seawolf35 ^T--C 23:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bradv:, do you notice how other articles are continuing to bloat up while the LA Momboisse blog matter raised above not having been resolved? Graywalls (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Nor does the pair of examples of WP:CITEKILL. Seawolf35, this is not a criticism of your acceptance, though I push those back (my personal preference), but of the editor's deployment of four citations for one fact. A fact they assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. I do not believe for a moment that bradv is criticising you either. There is a great deal of history with this editor that they are being helped with. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Bradv, Thanks for checking. The 1871 and 1873 dates are reflected in the citation for the Election history for the state of California. However, I will add a 2nd citation that includes this information as well. Good catch! Greg Henderson (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, the issue, to my way of thinking, is not so much the dates 1871 and the 1873 dates; the issue is the puffery..."dedication to public service extended to the legislative realm", "effective performance". Article should be written in as neutral of a tone as possible, even if it seem boring, mundane or dry to you. If I were to write the sentence I would say: "In 1871 he was elected to the California State Assembly, and was reelected in 1873." It has the same meaning without all the embellishments that make it sound so puffed up and fluffy. Filler is not needed in the encyclopedia, it's not a human interest venue or a place to promote how great someone is. The encyclopedia is a venue to globally share information and knowledge in the form of verifiable facts sourced to reliable sources that are appropriate for an encyclopedia project, stated in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Netherzone (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why he floods so many articles with this much weasel. Perhaps it's done through AI. He did admit to using AI to "spell check" but that's rather odd, because you don't need to use anything non-traditional to do spell check and he wasn't upfront about extent to which or the kind of AI he used. Helen MacGowan Cooke which he created as recent as June 2023 is full of puffery and weasel words. Graywalls (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I got it. I will not use puffery words to express my facts. I will keep a neutral tone. Thanks for the advice. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, just to be clear, articles should contain the facts as reported in secondary reliable sources, not my facts or your facts or any other individual editors facts.

Netherzone (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Timtrent, I will be more careful about adding four citations for one fact. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not just about four. Once verified t is verified. Think carefully about whether it requires more than a single citation, please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

LA Momboisse blog sourced contents

The several articles that I cleaned out/tagged was done because they contained LA Momboisse's blog as ELs or sources, not because they were your article, however it does appear that you were responsible for the insertion of that unreliable source in all the instances. RSP red blogspot should have brought a pop up warning about the use of this poor quality source. Did you not get the pop up? If you did, why did you proceed forward with it? Graywalls (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I have popup blocked. Thanks for cleaning this up. I know better now not to use blogs. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

and? I see you adding more contents than clean up getting done. Seems like a hollow response. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

My goal is to clean up several articles each day. To be honest with you, I have worked on two draft articles to update the National Register of Historic Places, to demonstrate my writing skills have improved, and to be reviewed by my peers. I hope this is OK with you. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

When you aesthetically polish problem contents by simply removing the unreliable source and unjustifiably removing maintenance templates while leaving poorly sourced contents in place, it conceals the problem without fixing it. It's like filling a pothole with ash to diminish its visibility. Graywalls (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Got it! I will not remove the maintenance tags and will make sure all poorly sourced contents are replaced with WP:RS. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006:, you've previously mentioned you "tend to work fast". In this case, you quickly crunched through and stripped out the blog. The reason I did not do it myself is because I don't know which part of the cited text was blog based and it's time consuming. First of all, if the blog was NOT used as a source to what it was attached to, why did you cite this in the first place? If you were tacking a blog on the tail of a sentence when it was not being used to support anything strengthen the case of spamming. If it was actually supporting something, you need to go through every source that is used for that particular part and isolate what's attributed to the blog. Are you just using a script to do this? I seriously doubt you have reviewed all five articles and sources in a span of five mintues and I believe you just stripped away the blogspot.com link. It's not realistic that you've reviewed all four sources in the edit here, given that you removed blogspot from five articles in five minutes or so. The other option would have to be strip the entire sentence, along with all the sources, then reintroduce only after you take the time to thoroughly review the sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'll go back next to do this. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 27–29 Fountain Alley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 27–29 Fountain Alley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27–29 Fountain Alley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Melcous (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Buildings

Greg, as you have noted above, you appear to be focusing your energy on creating articles about places on the National Register of Historic Places for California. And you appear to be proceeding on the assumption that being on this register in and of itself makes a building notable for wikipedia's purposes. I do not believe this is necessarily the case. Please see WP:NBUILDING which says buildings may be notable due to their historic or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. In others words, I believe you are continuing to create too many articles without clearly demonstrating notability. Please slow down and consider only creating an article if you can meet this high standard of significant coverage in independent sources. Melcous (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me give you one example to start with: you created 27–29 Fountain Alley which on the face of it might look like a well referenced article. It currently has 9 sources. However, when I look closely at those sources, what I find is this:

1. entry on the register
2. entry on a list
3. entry on a list
4. newspaper clipping saying the place will be built
5. one sentence in a book
6. list of tenant in the building in a directory of places to eat
7. news article with a short mention of the redevelopment of area, but no mention of this specific building
8. primary document about redevelopment project
9. entry on a list

In other words, none of these sources provide significant coverage about this building. I'm guessing this is not the only article with these issues. Melcous (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The 1st citation for 27–29 Fountain Alley includes a PDF that is a multi page description from the NPGallery Digital Asset Management System. This source was well written by a third party and reliable representative of the Department of Parks and Recreation. This documentation is a reliable source and it fully documents the text in the article. I am sorry that it was not clear in the citation as you need to click on a link within the document. I've updated the URL for citation #3 so it is going directly to the document. Please review again here or in the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That is the primary document about the building and its entry on the register. It is not an independent (or third party) source that provides significant coverage - that would be someone else (e.g. a historian or architect) writing about the building and its significance in some other place (e.g. book, journal article etc). Melcous (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

If you look at this citation: "National Register Information System – Fountain Alley (#82002265)". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. November 2, 2013. Retrieved 2023-12-10. it is the standard citation used by the National Register Of Historic Places, which is an independent third-party source. Greg Henderson (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

What I found troubling is making the basis for notability based on raw text of application form and citation that is extensive based on the application forms themselves. Graywalls (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There are other citations in the article. This one is the official one provided by the National Parks and Recreation Department. Greg Henderson (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, who are you suggesting is the independent third-party here? It troubles me that you still don't seem to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. As for the other citations, as I have listed above, none of them provide significant coverage. I'm fairly confident that if this article is proposed for AfD, it will not pass this test unless far better sourcing can be found. But the bigger issue is all the other articles that you have and are creating using the same misguided understanding of what makes something notable.Melcous (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is my analysis:

• Primary source This is the historical study that was done for the building. Rather long and rather extensive.
• Secondary source Clicking on the NRHP number in the Infobox will bring up the secondary source information presented by the National Register of Historic Places, which is part of Wikipedia's Portal:National Register of Historic Places. This includes listings on the state-county-city levels as well.
• So, I have tried to include all the sources that will pass WP:GNG, and do not see any reason to place a Notability tag on the Roma Bakery article.

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. The links you have included here Greg as "primary source" and "secondary source" are exactly the same. Clicking on the link in the article's infobox takes me to the exact same source. Again, how on earth is this an independent third party writing about the subject of the article? Melcous (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the URL were not correct.

The correct one for the secondary source is here, which sould take you to the actual National Park Service website, that lists the digital assets and secondary source information, e.g. National Register Information System ID: 82002265; Criteria used to demonstrate criteria to be registered in to NRHP. This is all coming from NRHP, which is the secondary source that is "third-party" and "independent sources". Greg Henderson (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

And yet again, that is the exact same link. Greg I'm sorry to say but all these back and forths with you are exhausting, and your frequent errors like this do not help. Melcous (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Not ture.

• The primary source is https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/2d4bc3c7-4a12-420f-a99d-47c039a18e3b here and the
• secondary source is https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/82002265 here.

Greg Henderson (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, those are two different links (above were all the same - you can check). Howeever, the first link is to the pdf nomination form, the second link is to a page on which that pdf nomination form appears as well as the metadata. They are not independent of one another. Melcous (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

If you click on the link in the infobox (#82002265) or on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Clara County, California it takes to what the National Park Service provides as the secondary source. On this page the NPS provides all the documentation that they used in their peer-review and acceptance criteria. By using this information we can write an article and demonstrate WP:NBUILDING guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

AnAfD discussion worth looking at. The building articles you created that could qualify as notable should have people aggrandizing contents and cruft/trivia purged. Like "this house was one of the first houses in the village, along with Jane, John, Adam and Eve's houses." Graywalls (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, for this discussion one fhe result was to keep‎. Below are some takeaways:

• Clicking on the NRHP number in the infobox, will bring up the historical study that was done for the building. Long and rather extensive.
• The reason buildings on the NRHP are considered notable is that the National Park Service requires that information in order to list a property, and their standards are higher than WP:GNG.

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant to say that aggrandizing contents about people and trivia like those I mentioned above should not be present so NRHP is not used as an anchor to make a coat rack article to serve as a peg to hang aggrandizing boastful contents about various common people or your extended, family members or the building's current tenant. Graywalls (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we/I should not post "aggrandizing boastful contents". That is not my intention at all. It is to report what is stated in the NRHP documentation. Where I fail at that, it is not intention and is fair game to remove. Thanks for your comments. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree with your comment that buildings on the NRHP are considered notable is that the National Park Service requires that information in order to list a property, and their standards are higher than WP:GNG. We don't use an outside organisation's guidelines for notability here, we use Wikpiedia's, regardless of your personal opinion on which one has "higher standards". I would also note from searching the table here that this property is clearly marked as of local significance only, not of state, national or international significance. That to me is actually a lower standard than wikipedia uses. Melcous (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Clara County, California is intended to be a complete list of the properties and districts for Santa Clara County, California, United States. There are 119 properties and districts listed. The majority already have Wikipedia pages written for them. They are notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. Significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources have established thier notability. If this is not the case a tag should be placed on the article to give editors a chance to improve it. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Charles King Van Riper

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 00:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Frederick C. Franck has been accepted

Frederick C. Franck, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Seawolf35 ^T--C 22:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

His dedication to public service extended to the legislative realm when he was elected to the California State Assembly in 1871, and his effective performance led to his reelection in 1873., sourced to http://www.joincalifornia.com/candidate/12287. This writing doesn't reflect the improvements you have been discussing on this talk page. – bradv 22:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bradv WP:NPOL seemed to be met with that draft and it is good enough, not perfect by any means though. Seawolf35 ^T--C 22:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it meets the bar for acceptance so I have no problems with your decision. But the writing and sourcing here are subpar, and if you read through this talk page and its archives, you'll understand why I was expecting better. – bradv 23:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bradv Thanks, although I have little desire to go through talk page archives and look into user conduct right now, I will keep that in mind for the future. Seawolf35 ^T--C 23:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bradv:, do you notice how other articles are continuing to bloat up while the LA Momboisse blog matter raised above not having been resolved? Graywalls (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Nor does the pair of examples of WP:CITEKILL. Seawolf35, this is not a criticism of your acceptance, though I push those back (my personal preference), but of the editor's deployment of four citations for one fact. A fact they assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. I do not believe for a moment that bradv is criticising you either. There is a great deal of history with this editor that they are being helped with. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Bradv, Thanks for checking. The 1871 and 1873 dates are reflected in the citation for the Election history for the state of California. However, I will add a 2nd citation that includes this information as well. Good catch! Greg Henderson (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, the issue, to my way of thinking, is not so much the dates 1871 and the 1873 dates; the issue is the puffery..."dedication to public service extended to the legislative realm", "effective performance". Article should be written in as neutral of a tone as possible, even if it seem boring, mundane or dry to you. If I were to write the sentence I would say: "In 1871 he was elected to the California State Assembly, and was reelected in 1873." It has the same meaning without all the embellishments that make it sound so puffed up and fluffy. Filler is not needed in the encyclopedia, it's not a human interest venue or a place to promote how great someone is. The encyclopedia is a venue to globally share information and knowledge in the form of verifiable facts sourced to reliable sources that are appropriate for an encyclopedia project, stated in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Netherzone (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why he floods so many articles with this much weasel. Perhaps it's done through AI. He did admit to using AI to "spell check" but that's rather odd, because you don't need to use anything non-traditional to do spell check and he wasn't upfront about extent to which or the kind of AI he used. Helen MacGowan Cooke which he created as recent as June 2023 is full of puffery and weasel words. Graywalls (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I got it. I will not use puffery words to express my facts. I will keep a neutral tone. Thanks for the advice. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, just to be clear, articles should contain the facts as reported in secondary reliable sources, not my facts or your facts or any other individual editors facts.

Netherzone (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Timtrent, I will be more careful about adding four citations for one fact. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not just about four. Once verified t is verified. Think carefully about whether it requires more than a single citation, please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

LA Momboisse blog sourced contents

The several articles that I cleaned out/tagged was done because they contained LA Momboisse's blog as ELs or sources, not because they were your article, however it does appear that you were responsible for the insertion of that unreliable source in all the instances. RSP red blogspot should have brought a pop up warning about the use of this poor quality source. Did you not get the pop up? If you did, why did you proceed forward with it? Graywalls (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I have popup blocked. Thanks for cleaning this up. I know better now not to use blogs. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

and? I see you adding more contents than clean up getting done. Seems like a hollow response. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

My goal is to clean up several articles each day. To be honest with you, I have worked on two draft articles to update the National Register of Historic Places, to demonstrate my writing skills have improved, and to be reviewed by my peers. I hope this is OK with you. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

When you aesthetically polish problem contents by simply removing the unreliable source and unjustifiably removing maintenance templates while leaving poorly sourced contents in place, it conceals the problem without fixing it. It's like filling a pothole with ash to diminish its visibility. Graywalls (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Got it! I will not remove the maintenance tags and will make sure all poorly sourced contents are replaced with WP:RS. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006:, you've previously mentioned you "tend to work fast". In this case, you quickly crunched through and stripped out the blog. The reason I did not do it myself is because I don't know which part of the cited text was blog based and it's time consuming. First of all, if the blog was NOT used as a source to what it was attached to, why did you cite this in the first place? If you were tacking a blog on the tail of a sentence when it was not being used to support anything strengthen the case of spamming. If it was actually supporting something, you need to go through every source that is used for that particular part and isolate what's attributed to the blog. Are you just using a script to do this? I seriously doubt you have reviewed all five articles and sources in a span of five mintues and I believe you just stripped away the blogspot.com link. It's not realistic that you've reviewed all four sources in the edit here, given that you removed blogspot from five articles in five minutes or so. The other option would have to be strip the entire sentence, along with all the sources, then reintroduce only after you take the time to thoroughly review the sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'll go back next to do this. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Santa Clara Verein has been accepted

Santa Clara Verein, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Qcne (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Santa Clara Verein

Greg, I just did some clean up of puffery and excessive detail on Draft:Santa Clara Verein. Please examine my edits to what see I did to reword the draft to be more in keeping for a Wikipedia article and NPOV. Note the differences in tone, and that I deleted tangential trivial details that seemed like padding. Netherzone (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the draft. Your changes make sense and represent a neutral point of view. I appreciate your help! Greg Henderson (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I continue to work on it, needs more work. Watch what I do. Netherzone (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The flowery language, weasel and WP:OR with regard to Special:Diff/1177228786 was thoroughly addressed in September 2023. Since then, several of us have purged similar fluff. If we're having to revisit similar thing already, I don't think he is ready to be working in main space on his own accord any more so than a teacher who can't help himself but swear like a sailor while teaching. Graywalls (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

By working in the main space I can help clean up the flowery language, weasel or WP:OR. I thought we agreeded that Here's a better process. Go through each and every source. Pull out unreliably sourced info. Until then, leave all the maintenance templates in place. I am really trying to get better at this and work each day to improve how I edit. I believe I am improving and will continue to work on it. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, glad you are trying to improve the reliability of your work. Moving forward, Draftspace – not Mainspace – is the place to develop articles, get rid of puffery and weasel words, tweak the tone so it is neutral and encyclopedic, get rid of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, remove any low quality or depricated sources, remove embellishment, exaggeration and tangential trivial details, make sure all sources are verifiable (and about the subject themself/itself), and double check that none of the sources are used in a manner that is misrepresented in the text of the article. And please don't try to game the system. This is why I think all your articles should run thru AfC.

In the best interest of your own time - and the time of the volunteers that are cleaning up your articles - try to only create articles on things/people that you are 100% certain are notable per Wikipedia's standards for notability, not your own standards for people/subjects that may be known in your own small community but not in the larger realm. Remember, we are an international, global encyclopedia. I like obscure topics as much as the next editor, but one must use their best judgement and analytical skills to decide - in advance - if a topic is worth a new article, or if it should just be a few sentences or a paragraph in an existing article. Wikipedia is not a race to some imaginary finish line, or number-of-articles contest or editcountitis! Think quality, not quantity. Think best practices! And please do keep in mind that we are volunteers here, and that backlogs can happen at AfC, NPP, and AFD. Please don't make work for others - be considerate of everyone's time; we are a collaborative project. You have the skills, you just have to temper some of your old habits. I mean all of this in good faith, Greg. Now is the time to change. Netherzone (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% and appreciate what you are saying. You are right, in the past I wrote articles for my own interest, thinking they were noteworthy. Now, my efforts are to clean up articles I've created and only write articles that are of National ore Regional interest, e.g. places listed on the National Register of Historic Places or people that meet the WP:NP gudelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, the statements you made here and here in asserting notability to petition deletion within the last few days shows A.) you still do not understand what WP:N is or B.) you intend to create and preserve things you believe to be notable even if you know they don't meet Wikipedia notability. The arguments you make, such as being born to notable parents, marrying into someone notable as basis for notability clearly show this. Also, keep in mind not all "secondary source" is a good source. Someone who analyzes government records, diaries (primary sources), then publish their analysis and commentary is secondary.Such as some Carmel-in-the-Sea resident who wrote a book and paid to get it published via vanity press like Author House. Yet, this is a bad quality secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't wish to be seen as piling on, Greg. I simply want to say that Graywalls is presenting you t=with correct interpretation of the rules.

A source may be in and of itself reliable, but not everything written about within that source is useful material either for an article or for a reference. This is where your judgement comes in. You need to use it to be more selective.

An additional matter for your attention is your prose style. If you are writing for a magazine it is on target. Wikipedia requires flat, neutral, dull-but-worthy, non praising prose. It also requires brevity.

Mythical example: He took to the law, and became an advocate, qualifiying as a lawyer is better as He qualified as a lawyer

Keep it simple; do not write a story; record cited facts simply; be brief.

That is the best advice I can give you. The problem is that I feel I have given it before. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Timtrent, thanks for your advice. I do appreciate it. I am trying my best to be a better writer and to write/edit using the WP guidelines. I hope my more recent and future articles show this. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The way to learn this fast is to remember how school lessons taught the skills of the précis.

After you write what you wish to say, be brutal and edit out every unnecessary word. If you can replace two words with a single word which is more easily understood (this is better), do it. If a sentence is repeated, lose the poorer of the two sentences. If a theme is repeated, treat it the same way.

Your aim is to be

• clear
• concise
• unambigous
• totally neutral

You can do this. I know you can, because you know, you really know when you are getting it wrong 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls, I understand what you are saying. I no longer wish to create things that are not notable. My plan is to only create articles that are notable, e.g. Historical landmarks, National register of places, politicians, etc. Yes, in the past I did create articles that were not as notible. You are doing a good job in pointing this out. I felt that in terms of the Cooke sisters, they were notable because of their basic achievements, early pioneers of a city, but realize from what you are saying, that is not enough. Others agree with you. Going forward, perhaps I should not even vote in these deletion nominations. Again, that is the past, and I hope you judge me on my current 27+ articles that have been peer reviewed and accepted into the article space. They are not perfect, but they represent a solid attempt to write an article that is more notable that previous ones I have done. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Then, why are you dragging down the process by disputing the AfD nominations with invalid notability claims? Graywalls (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I felt I should give my 2 cents. I do not like deleting articles. I see a lot of stubs and terrible articles, and articles with no citations at all. There are thousands of articles that have no citations and they have not been deleted. I am sorry, but I put a lot effort into creating the article(s) and don't like it when they are deleted. Having said that, I fully understand your rational for wanting to delete the article(s) and wish to support you in your efforts to improve the quailty of Wikipeida. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I know how you feel, Greg. Others, me included, have felt that before. I have had articles I have sweated blood over deleted. It kind of hurts. It hurts until I recognise that I am smaller than the community. It makes me realise that I had written a poorly sourced article. What I have found is that it was and is my responsibility to do better. I have learned contentment. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. Yes, the future is ahead of us. I need to do better in what articles I write about and to make sure they are well sourced. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad.

Please hear this very clearly: We want you to succeed.

That is the only real message. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have accepted this draft today as it looks okay to me. Certainly would pass the 50% chance of AfD. Let me know if I've missed anything obvious? @Graywalls @Timtrent @Netherzone Qcne (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Qcne, looks OK to me. @Greghenderson2006, I wish that you would spend more time cleaning up your older articles before continuing to create more. Other editors have expressed the same wishes. We've spent hundreds of hours collectively cleaning them up for you. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, out of consideration to the community of volunteers here, could you think about kindly complying with that request? Netherzone (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are RIGHT. I spend each day cleaning up my articles. In the last month I have cleaned up 14 articles. This is important to me as well items on the National Register of Historic Places. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 - GOOD! Only several hundred more to clean up, please take the lead on this effort. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Qcne I think it is acceptable, but I have flagged it for WP:CITEKILL, not really a gating factor in this case. I have seen examples where a review is impossible because we have no idea what the real referencing is to be

@Greghenderson2006 please get to grips with understanding the you over-reference trivial facts

• Later, another roof structure was added.[2][9][10][7]
• the club had forty-five members.[6][2][7][4]

Ask yourself why a single citation is not all that is required, please. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.

It's really time that you learn to reference simply., and ideally singly. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: You make an excellent point. I will follow this guideline during my cleanup and new article creations. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If you start out with the simple thought "Whom is this article for?" it starts to make even better sense.

For me, an article's job is:

1. Primarily, to record verifiable facts
2. Secondarily, to inform, entertain, enlighten the reader
3. To allow the reader to go further, with their own research

Item 1 is easy, provided we do not get carried away

Item 2 is harder if we try to show how wise we are, how much learning we have, how much research we have done. That does not inform, entertain, enlighten the reader. To inform them we should keep things simple, cutting down clutter - extraneous references, extraneous words. We need to think: "Is this one reference sufficient?" If so, then one reference is fine. If not "Can I find a different reference to use, and dump or repurpose the original one I have found?" We should research until we find the best reference (I return to Elsie Reasoner Ralph which had sufficient referencing until a "kind" soul added two more for one point)

Item 3 is handled by having "just the right amount of referencing" which makes it likely that a reader will follow up at least some references. If we provide them with a welter of them it tends to put them off. I am using me, a sample of one, to make this statement. Everyone has a different threshold.

Knowing that an article is almost never complete, "less is more" may spur them on to add to it. I am always excited when I see something I've written being expanded. It means I have done my job. Wikipedia's needs aside (I have met them) I have met the needs of one or more readers. I write for readers. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Timtrent, I like the way you put this: "Whom is this article for?" and will follow your advice. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Spotting scammers

Hey there. I'm about a month late but this question seems important, so I want to provide an answer. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary W. Lopez, you said How can we verify that brendanconway and/or William Avery are scammers? The answer to this is that Brendanconway and William Avery are legitimate editors on Wikipedia. That is, their usernames on this site are valid and they are experienced editors in good standing. If you see them in the edit history of an article or a talk page, they are legit.

What happened to you and Mr. Lopez is that a scammer is pretending to be them and registered an email address that uses their name. However that email is fake and is actually a random scammer, not those two editors in question. That make sense? brendanconway@wikipediaafd.org is the scammer. Wikipediaafd.org is owned by some scammer and has no affiliation with Wikipedia.

Hope that makes sense. Let me know if you still have questions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It is too bad that these type of scammers want to take advantage people at a time when their article has been nominated for deletion. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it really sucks. It makes Wikipedia look corrupt too, when in fact our editors have great values such as wanting to spread free knowledge and wanting everything that goes on on Wikipedia to be transparent. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Verifiablility

Greg, I have just added a "failed verification" tag to content you added to the lead of Katharine Cooke. As you surely should know by now, verifiability means that another editor should be able to look up the source you have cited to check and clearly see that the information is found in that source, and is not coming from anywhere else. In this case, that means the source needs to verify (a) that Cooke played a "major role" in the establishment of the Forest Theater, and (b) that the Forest Theater is "one of the oldest outdoor theaters" in the region. While the source it not fully available online, it is searchable, and I cannot see how it verifies either of those claims. The word "oldest" does not appear in the text at all; and the page you have cited (page 68) does not mention Cooke. (As far as I can tell, the source mentions her once, on page 71, in a list of names). Please explain. Melcous (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I will update the citation with the correct page numbers to match any updated text. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This response is misleading - you make it sound like you "updated text" and didn't update the citation at the same time. In fact, you inserted the text and the citations for it [1]. Where did you get the text from and why did you think it was ok to add those citations when they did not verify it? Melcous (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Great question. I am trying to show notability. The two citations for the text "Between 1911 to 1926, Cooke played a major role in the development of the Forest Theater, one of the oldest outdoor theaters in the Western United States., were intened to show (a) dates of her performance were between 1911 to 1926 (b) she was a producer and actor that "played leading roles in Forest Theater productions" (page 71), and (c) the Forest Theater is the "oldest outdoor theater west of the Rockies" (main page). I am sorry it was not an exact verbatim, but it is in a lead intro, and I wanted to convey the message that she played a major role in the development of the Forest Theater via her performances at period in the Theaters' early history. I am sorry if it did not follow the WP guidelines. In the future, I will avoid using this type of verbiage. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, context matters. If someone may have been considered an "important producer/director/leading lady" at a particular time frame, in a tiny community of a few hundred people at a small local theater in a country of millions, in a world of billions, well, that is not the same as having a major national or international (global) impact. Yet you continue to state such inflations in WikiVoice to make these minor people (within your local community) sound uber-important and world famous. That is promotionalism and boosterism and bias. Your exaggerations have fooled others into thinking the same through this hyperbolic puffery. An example is how some other editors immediately accept her importance by just seeing some hits on Google. Ironically, several of those hits are to your own articles in this walled garden of the Carmel Elites that you have constructed, or are name checks in hyper-local, touristic boosterism for Carmel. This is misleading. Your playing clueless about things like WP notability criteria, verifiability, guidelines/policies, and the like seems truly bizarre given that you have been editing since 2006. Not "getting it" for 18 years is quite a record. Netherzone (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Slow down. I think you are exagerating it a bit. Please look at the articles: Carmel-by-the-Sea, California and the Forest Theater. What about the List of tourist attractions in Monterey County, California, California Historical Landmarks in Monterey County or Template:Monterey Peninsula Golf. Are these part of a Walled garden?

What we are trying to do is include in an encylopedia a fair representation of a popular area that includes the Monterey Peninsula. These are real subjects of interest.

I appreciate your concern and will do my very best to only write articles that are of WP:RS, which tie the history of these cities. My articles are going through a review before they are published. I am making an honest effort to clean up my past articles. Please be patient with this process. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Who is we, Greg? When I compare the number of articles on Carmel compared to other artsy communities (with much larger populations) like Aspen, Ashville, Santa Fe/Taos, Austin, Venice Beach, etc. it's fairly obvious. I guess Carmel is the center of the universe! To my way of thinking, it is you who needs to slow down. Netherzone (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

A search on Wikipedia for Aspen results in 1,142 articles! The The Aspen Times is a local paper. There are numerious lists, e.g. List of people from Aspen, Colorado. Check out categories for Aspen: here and the category here. Looks pretty much the same as Carmel-by-the-Sea. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, who is we of which you speak? BTW, at least five editors have pointed out the Carmel walled garden. However, you don't seem to want to understand what is being communicated. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Netherzone (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Thanks for your comments. I was speaking on behalf of other article creators for Carmel or for that matter Aspen. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

In Aspen, there is none of those set of articles like Bus shelter 1332 designed by designer A and master installer B along with biography of these people who have also designed and installed bus shelters 1333, 1334 and 1335. With your articles, when you go to Bus shelter 1333 and it has duplicative contents talking about how those same people built it and they've also done the 1332 shelter on which land it was purchased from the sheep farmer's (1950-2022) wife (1955-2020) where she once had a weaving studio, which was designed by architect C and built by some local builder D whose son played with the farmer's son at some hyperlocal softball league. Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I undersand your point. There are some Aspen buildings that have issues too. See Aspen Meadows Resort with citation issues and Wheeler Opera House, which is overely detailed. I will work on tightening up my articles. Thanks! Greg Henderson (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, @Greghenderson2006. The Aspen Meadows Resort article is especially problematic. It was created by an editor with only a little over 500 total edits (so they may not have known better due to lack of experience) A quick glance at their article creations shows that others are also problematic. Netherzone (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that claim should be mentioned at all, as the statement that the Forest Theater is one of the oldest open air entertainment venues in the West is misleading and should be removed. There is a long legacy of these types of outdoor spaces in the Western US. For example to name a few, the Taos Plaza in New Mexico going back to 1803, Santa Fe Plaza going back to the 1820s, Red Rock Canyon amphitheater going back to 1906, Bayview Opera House open air theater in San Francisco going back to 1888, Cushing Memorial Amphitheater (modern name) 1913, and in the Los Angeles area open air theaters in the old historic district going back to the 18th/19th century, later the Greek Theater, Hollywood Bowl sites. The list goes on. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to remove the claim you can, or I can. I am simply trying to show that Katharine Cooke is notable because she was one of the earliest actors, directors, and producers for an outdoor theater that got a lot of attention in the West Coast newspapers. If you do a newspapers.com search on "Forest Theater" in California from 1910  –  1930, you get 894 matches! "Katharine Cooke" gets 30 matches, "Katherine Cooke" (another spelling) gets 84 matches! Judge for yourself, this lady should have a place in an encylopdia that includes child actors that played a major role in making a theater successful! Greg Henderson (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I also want to express that in general, the ongoing use of some sources whose primary purpose is to promote tourism to Carmel is questionable. Whether those sources are local news/press releases, coffee-table picture books, self-published sources, local chamber-of-commerce type announcements, ticket purchasing sites, and the like, they probably should be used with much more discretion if at all. It is questionable whether these are appropriate for an encyclopedia in the first place. Netherzone (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that such publications should not be used. However, I am in the process of cleaning up surch sources and replacing them with WP:RS from secondary and primary sources, e.g. books published by notable publishers, and Monterey County has several of them. With a population of 439K, there is certainly an audience for this type of encylopedic material. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, the fact that you these kinds of errors in citing sources continue to be made after all the discussion you have had about it is highly troubling and again raises competence concerns. And I am still yet to see a single example of you going back and cleaning up/rewriting content that is not verified by sources, rather you continue to add more/different sources without changing the content, which suggests you are not taking the care required. On this article, I am still not seeting anything in the sources you have added that says she "played a major role" - that is your interpretation/analysis and therefore original research. Nor do either of the sources seem to make a claim of "oldest" for the theater - again that appears to be your own interpretation or analysis of sources. Do you understand what WP:OR means when it says is includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources? And would you agree that this is an example of doing that? (On a side note, I also agree with @Netherzone: about the use of hyper local sources. The goal of wikipedia is to be a global encyclopedia, there are plenty of other websites for the collection of local history - I have removed one source which itself cites wikipedia as its source). Melcous (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

In the month of Jaunuary I have cleaned up 20 articles. This cleanup invovles removing unreliable sources and replacing with WP:RS sources; as well as removing the text that is not including it the new citation. I am not perfect, so there still may be some issues. I understand WP:OR and my goal is to not include orginal research. Local sources can be important and include secondary and primary citations, however, I understand the need for including global ones as well. If you look at any county level articles, they usually have a majority of local sources, e.g. National Register of Historic Places for any county. For me, following the verification process is important and I will strive to continue to only write or edit articles using these WP guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Tourism promotion is quite obvious in the choice of contents to include in an editorial decision like this The beach is open to walk-in visitors, and has public restrooms next to the parking lot which is clearly encourage visits. Graywalls (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Tourism promotion is not my attention at all and I understand you point about not promoting Tourism and would agree the sentence it not ncessary. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Melcous:, it's gotten so frequent that I've been pushing over the entire paragraph to talk page for Greg to go through EACH source and clean out non-verifiable info. However, as you'll see in Talk:Sundial Lodge, he'd still sometimes restore things back without properly verifying what's restored. It's incredibly frustrating. Graywalls (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an old article that needed cleanup. I completed several passes through it and removed unreliable citations and replaced with reliable ones. Thanks you for your comments. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Nomination of Alexander D. Henderson (businessman) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander D. Henderson (businessman) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander D. Henderson (businessman) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of George Faunce Whitcomb for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Faunce Whitcomb is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Faunce Whitcomb until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Hi Greghenderson2006! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Alexander D. Henderson Jr. that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for letting me know. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And you're back at direct editing your family members again so I see. Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It was just a citation added. No text was changed. If you prefer, I can make a request edit to add a citation? Greg Henderson (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You also edited your grandpa, which in the source relevant to the edit made, identified you as the article subject's grandson. Graywalls (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I only added citations to support birth and death dates. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Here, you directly edited on your grandfather of the nature that affects what's covered. In the source near the relevant quote, it says: "Jerry read about Allen Paulson developing the hustlers in Van Nuys," said Greg Henderson, his grandson." You also made your COI declaration on your page more conservative and removed COI declaration for all those Henderson, Ford whatever related articles. Stop playing dumb. You were well aware you shouldn't be direct editing Henderson related sort of articles. Graywalls (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This was not my grandfather but a great uncle. I simply made a small edit to your addition to remove an extra space you made and complete the sentence based on the source you provided. I did not think this update needed an entire Request Edit. In terms of your other point, my COI declaration is visible under the section "COI Declarations." It includes both Hendersons and Fords: Joseph Henderson (pilot), Alexander D. Henderson (businessman), Alexander D. Henderson Jr., Girard B. Henderson, Tirey L. Ford, Byington Ford, as well as others. If you would like me to make Request Edits for minor edits or adding requested citations, or want me to disclose my COI in a different way, please let me know. I am open to working with you on any necessary tasks to demonstrate that I am not acting unaware or playing dumb. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to make you both aware, there seems to be an issue with the way the COI disclosures are showing on Greg's user page. I can see from the edit history that there are 19 COI articles listed, but the current public page is only showing 9 of these. Greg can you please look at this (It seems to be a formatting issue as the template only allows 9 numbered items - see Template:User COI) and fix it so that all your COI disclosures are publicly visible? Thank you Melcous (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Great suggestion @Melcous:! I was able to add after the ninth entry a text Free flowing text with the names of the other COI disclosures. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Great. You should probably put in the wiki-formatting (square brackets) to create the links for those additional items as they are not done automatically like the first 9 are. Melcous (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Edward G. Kuster, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Here you've added a blog which is Linda Hartong personal website https://talesfromcarmel.com/2012/02/27/i-am-invited-to-tour-the-kuster-meyer-house/ you acknowledged should not be used in another artcicle. A blogspot blog was removed and you promptly re-inserted another BLOG.

With retrieval date of Sep 22, 2016, I am wondering if you've composed things outside Wiki and are copying and pasting from your offline source. Graywalls (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Percy Parkes Building for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Percy Parkes Building is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Parkes Building until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Melcous (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Isabel Leidig Building for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isabel Leidig Building is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel Leidig Building until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Melcous (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Notable buildings

Greg, it seems clear from the discussion of WP:GEOFEAT at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27–29 Fountain Alley that a building that is on the National Register of Historic Places meets this presumption of notability (note: that still does not mean it is notable, but that it is presumed to be so). However, WP:GEOFEAT makes clear that this is for protected status at a national level only. You also seem to have been proceeding on the assumption that buildings on the California Register of Historical Resources are presumed to be notable. I think this is clearly incorrect, and this in these cases WP:NBUILDING applies and there must be WP:SIGCOV of these for notability to be established. I think this means all the articles created on buildings on the California register need to be looked at to see whether there is genuinely significant coverage of them - my guess is for quite a few there is not. Are you willing to take the time to look into this as part of cleaning up your previous articles? Melcous (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Melcous, yes, I am willing to do this. I will look to see if the buildings have WP:SIGCOV. The main reason I have created these articles is because they are already considered historic at the city level and are protected by city guidelines. The coverage shows, or will show, why they are historically important based on the criteria used at the state or national level. For California, the criteria for designation is here. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Just to clarify, it really doesn't matter what the California criteria is. The question is whether they meet WP:NBUILDING, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent sources. That would mean sources other than the application for designation, and beyond mere mentions elsewhere. Articles for which that coverage does not exist should probably be nominated for deletion. Melcous (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, you again introduced a personal website blog as a source to assert some building some guy in Carmel built should be a timeline of the Carmel-by-the-Sea here. Graywalls (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The citation was the wrong one. The correct citation from Linda Leigh Paul's book: Cottages by the Sea The Handmade Homes of Carmel, America's First Artist Community. It is a WP:RS book located here. It has 10 reviews on Worldcat. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, how many times has "the citation was the wrong one" happened in recent times? WP:CIR. courtesy pings to @Melcous and Netherzone:. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It was very close in terms of contents of the citation minus the URL. I updated the citation with the correct one. I should have double-checked. Been very busy with Wikipedia tasks as well as other tasks. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, I have nominated the two articles below for deletion as a starting point, as I am not seeing anything close to WP:SIGCOV for either of them. But I also have a question - in both you have written that they were "nominated and submitted" to be on the California Register of Historical Resources". Can you please explain why you have phrased it that way? Have they been accepted on that register or just nominated (or do you not have evidence either way)? Melcous (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

These are important buildings in Carmel's downtown district that have been recognized by the city as meeting the criteria set by the National Register of Historic Places. They were submitted to the National Registry to be recognized at the state level as well, which is pending further documentation. The City recognizes that the commercial properties that surround this area contain some of the most memorable and important commercial buildings in Carmel. The design character and ambience created by these buildings are an essential part of the Carmel experience. This area also has one of the highest concentrations of historic buildings in the City. The city wants to protect the historic resources and the general design context that surrounds them. There is a lot of documentation about these buildings, which can be found in secondary and primary resources. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

So you're telling me these buildings were nominated to be on a state-level historic list twenty two years ago and that nomination is "still pending further documentation"? And that you still think this meets wikipedia's notability criteria? 04:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Seriously?

Every time you make edits like these two on articles you are being paid to edit, you are further eroding what little community trust you may still hold, haven't you learned your lesson by now? Left guide (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Got it. They were simple edits to answer a request for better sources. There are some minor changes a COI can make. However, I will make them as Request Edits going forward. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

As a paid editor on Gary Hugh Brown, please use the Edit Request Template

Hi Greg, as a paid editor on Gary Hugh Brown you should not be directly editing the article Gary Hugh Brown in mainspace. WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE states: If you propose changes to an affected article, you can use the {{edit COI}} template. Post it on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it. That includes reverting another editor's work (in this case an uninvolved/unconnected good-faith newer editor). Please use the talk page so that other editors (without a COI) can discuss the proposed edits and decide whether or not to include them. Thanks, Netherzone (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will use COI edit request template. It was just a simple citation/text update. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It's probably best to use the Edit Request System, Greg, because there have been many instances where the sources do not match what the claims in articles are, or sources are unreliable or primary. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request is appropriate for requesting fresh changes, but to ask new uninvolved, unaware editors to make changes that are under editorial dispute is not a proper way to use edit request. Graywalls (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls - the way I worded that was awkwardly incorrect. I did not mean to say that only new uninvolved, unaware editors should make changes I meant to say that only editors without a COI should make changes (or not make changes) in response to edit requests. Hope that clears things up - I modified my statement above. Netherzone (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Frank Lloyd Wright, Chuck Henderson

Greg, I got around to removing YOUTUBE website here. The video is WP:SPS and the anchor is named Chuck Henderson. Is this person someone related in the realm of that Henderson Family Tree thing or just coincidentally named Henderson? Graywalls (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Similar to @GreenC's comment here, please stop asking this user to provide personal information on a public website. There is an e-mail function within Wikipedia if you have such questions. Seasider53 (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If you research Chuck Henderson and find a connection to Greg Henderson, that would also be a problem to reveal on Wikipedia. At such point you could email Greg with the information you found and ask them to deal with it appropriately (delete the content or reveal a COI). If they don't, email WP:OVERSIGHT to ask for help. -- GreenC 15:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Yes, please email me and I would be happy to answer any questions. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: You have openly used the Henderson Family Tree as a source on Wikipedia. While you're not expected to reveal the exact nature of relationship, please indicate affirmatively and negatively if you have connection to the source used. @Seasider53:, I believe this is within permissible request.Graywalls (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. I do not use Hendersonfamilytree as a source. All sources are coming from WP:RS. If I had used it in the past, it was a long time ago. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Normandy Inn has been accepted

Normandy Inn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Buildings - again

Greg, I've just edited the article Carmel Weavers Studio to remove the wording that this building "is significant according to the criteria of the California Register" with the only source being the twenty-one-year-old application to be put on that register. You cannot use a primary source seeking a particular status to then claim in wikipedia's voice that it meets the criteria for that status. That is entirely circular. Do you see the problem? And if so, would you be willing to go back through every other article where you have done this and remove it? Melcous (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think you are trying to do what you think is best for Wikipedia. We can still say the building is signifcant according to criteria published by the California Register of Historical Resources and supported by DPR 523 form for the Carmel Weavers Studio filled out by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. We can collaborate this with the fact the city has placed the building on both the Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey updated on February 2019. In addition to this, there are several books (secondary resources) that document the time, place, and history of the building that help support that the fact that the building is notable as a key landmark of the city.

The city provides a framework for identifying historic resources and determining their relative significance and maintains an Inventory of Historic Resources that includes all properties that have been identified as historically significant to date: Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources Database. More info is here.

Please try to understand that we are talking about a building that is historic by its documented history, and is notable as a result of its historic, social, and architectural importance, which includes significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources. The article follows the guidelines set out by WP:NBUILDING. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you cannot say the building is signifcant according to criteria published by the California Register of Historical Resources unless that register has accepted it as such. Otherwise all you can say is that somebody else has nominated it or claimed that it is significant according to that criteria. Again I ask you, why do you think nominations from over twenty years ago that do not appear to have been accepted by the body nominated to are notable? Melcous (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

If the California Resiger has published the criteria and the city uses it judge if a building is historic, then it is significant based on this criteria. It does not mater if it has been accepted at the state level because the city has already accepted it at the city level using this criteria. Therefore it is notable in eyes of the City. The property remains on the list of historic buildings, which was updated as recently as 2019. The building is also part of a smaller group of buildings that are historic within the Carmel Historic Commerical Property District. Not sure you why you are so conerned about the article as long as it follows the WP:NBUILDING guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

So the absolute most you would be able to say in wikipedia's voice is that the city believes it meets the state's criteria for historical significance. That is not the same thing as what you have written. The reason I am concerned about the article is precisely because it does not follow the WP:NBUILDING guidelines - as noted on the talk page, there is no evidence it is on a national register (or in this case even on a state register) so there is no presumption of notability under WP:GEOFEAT, therefore there must be WP:SIGCOV. And there is not: the city's nomination (which also, is not for this specific building but for it as part of a larger group) is not a secondary source. Melcous (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Above you have noted it remains on a list of historic buildings from 2019. That is the city's list, right? If that was the criteria for notability, I could literally create 30,000+ articles on buildings in my tiny corner of the world. But I don't, and I shouldn't, because this is a global encyclopedia and the community has decided the standards of what makes something significant for its purposes, and they are higher than what is locally significant. That you cannot understand this and continue to create a huge amount of articles about your tiny corner of the world, to be honest, feels somewhat blinkered and even arrogant from a global perspective. Melcous (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not talking about the city list but the 2019 document with a smaller selection of buildings in the downtown area that are considered more notable. The document is listed here. I think the part you may not understand is that the city has spent a lot of time to document downtown buildings that follow the state criteria for historical buildings. The city has strict building and modifications codes to protect there historical value. The majority of these buildings were built in the 1910s through the 1920s and have historical and architectural value, as well as built by notable architects and builders. Greg Henderson (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That document is also from the city so it changes nothing. Lots of cities spend a lot of time documenting local history and heritage and seeking to preserve it - that's a noble enterprise. But we are talking about what makes an individual building notable for inclusion in a gloal encyclopedia with a stand alone article, using the criteria editors here have worked and agreed on. Are you seriously suggesting that every single building with local historical significance recognised by its city in the world would meet that criteria? Or do you just think there is something particularly special about your city above all others? Either way, the point is moot because WP:GEOFEAT very specifically says national registers confer a presumption of notability, not state or local. WP:SIGCOV becomes the only relevant test, and your understanding of independent, secondary sources continues to exhibit WP:IDHT that tendencies. Melcous (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not talking about WP:GEOFEAT. The building meets WP:NBUILDING guidelines with WP:SIGCOV via the secondary sources cited in the article. Perhaps your definition of SIGCOV is different than others. Based on the guidelines I have read, and other agree with me, that SIGCOV doesn't have to be volumes of text but coverage like you see in Kent Seavey's book Carmel, A History in Architecture. Greg Henderson (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you please point me precisely to where other editors have agreed that Seavey's book provides WP:SIGCOV? And if not, where you think "coverage like that" has been agreed by other editors to meet WP:SIGCOV? Melcous (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:GNG's "significant coverage" does not require a volume of words. It can also mean the quality of the words e.g. coverage which demonstrates notability. It can be a single sentence in length: "First softball league in the Western United States." is eight words of significance towards notability. For the record, this issue has been debated forever at the notability guideline page and Wikipedia talk:Notability. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The article follows the WP:NBUILDING guidelines because of its historic and architectural importance outlined by the three city documents, with WP:SIGCOV in-depth coverage cited in the article from reliable, third-party sources. Greg Henderson (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Citing volumerous PDFs

Hello, When you're citing massively lengthy PDF files that is a compilation of various documents, it is important to cite the range of pages so others checking work don't have to comb through the whole thing. Especially if the file is not text searchable. Graywalls (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add it is better not to include search results in the link (especially when the search terms are for a different location/person as has often occurred with your editing) - page numbers are the standard way of allowing other editors to verify content. Melcous (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Good points! Not sure if the document has page numbers, but wil remove search results. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If the document doesn't show page in-document, "pdf page 111" and such is a reasonable use of hidden comments in addition to marking it visibly in page as "111". Hidden comments are though, not for storing things that fail contents guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GF Whitcomb.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GF Whitcomb.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop spamming government documents

Literally every single person (aside from illegal immigrants) who has ever set foot in the United States has records like these, so they are ordinary primary sources that do absolutely nothing to demonstrate WP:DUE. To flesh out sections of prose cited to them is not encyclopedic, nor is it standard practice for biographical articles on Wikipedia. Your walled garden is the only place I have seen this occur on a mass scale, and your recent contributions show precisely why. Please stop. Left guide (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about? U.S Passport to show date of birth or travel info? Is not allowed? Greg Henderson (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to corroborate and confirm a date of birth or death in the infobox, then that is fine, but writing out detailed sections cited to those documents that are a who's who of family members and marriages is undue, this is not a genealogy website. And to write about family travel activities cited to those documents is even more undue. Left guide (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes you can't find any secondary source so primary sources have to suffice. I do not understand the problem with citing a primary source for birth/death dates, especially if it is coming from the U.S. Government. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Again (feels like I'm repeating my previous comment), it's fine when citing birth or death dates in the infobox. The problem lies when you write a full section of article prose cited exclusively to such documents like so. Left guide (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. What you are saying you prefer that text is supportive with secondary sources. I agree, that is ideal, but where does it say you can not build a sentence, especially "early life" with primary sources, as long as the body of the text is supportive by secondary sources? For 19th century people, that are notable, sometimes there is just no confirming information in the secondary source for a "full name" or "full date-of-birth". To omit this information seems worse than to have it supportive by a primary source. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to supply citations from primary source documents to confirm the article subject's full name and full date of birth. Left guide (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain…

…why I had to remove this material which is grossly incompatible with an encyclopedia? It was clearly written by you since it was present in this version in which you were the only editor of the page up to that point, so it sat live in mainspace for at least six months. This passage is marginally better, only because it lacks second-person voice, but it's still deeply problematic. Do you have any sort of conflict of interest with the Marcel Sedletzky article? Be completely honest. (Also pinging @Graywalls and Melcous: who did major cleanups on this article). Left guide (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Coincidentally, the Sedletsky house was listed as for sale on the market when this was written, as seen in these real estate listings: [2], [3]. Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The info is coming from the book "Stories of Old Carmel". It is a chapter on Sedletzky. I realize now it is not a reliable source because it was self published by the Carmel Residents Association. I have no COI with Sedletzky. If I were to write this today, I would (a) not use this source, (b) would not phrase the house in that way. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any COI's with the real estate industry, agents, agencies or the owner of the home? The reason for the question, in addition to the coincidental timing of the article creation, is that the wording is extremely promotional, the type one finds specifically in real estate sales listings. The other reason is that it was written during the time you were doing undisclosed paid editing. I'm not accusing you of anything, just trying to get my head wrapped around the complexity of these matters. Netherzone (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It is sometimes hard to respond to text messages and not talk to the person asking questions in person. You seem like a really nice guy. However, to answer your question, no I have no COI with the real estate industry, agents, agencies or the owner of the home. I was simply taking chapters from the book (not realizing it was unpublished material) and writing articles to describe the people and places of Carmel. My only COI is living in the area and taking pride in the history. I don't think of this as a walled garden, but rather sharing information that I feel would be important in an encylopedia. For example, several of my articles have gotten a high page viewer count, e.g. The Clinton Walker House, The Butterfly House, etc. Lately, I feel I can provide a better service by writing articles that are on the National Registery of historic homes/buildings. These are pretty straight forward and can avoid a lot of notability issues. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thank you for clarifying that, Greg. It is a good idea to focus on NRHP National Register of Historic Places. I enjoy working in that area as well. Netherzone (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up

Greghenderson2006, in this comment you stated I realize now it is not a reliable source because it was self published by the Carmel Residents Association. As a follow-up, are you willing to go through the article and remove all of its citations and attached material? Left guide (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. My goal is to go through the article and remove all of its citations and attached material. Hopefully, I can find new citations that support this material. Thank you for your concern. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you for cooperating. Left guide (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Walter Brewer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walter Brewer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Brewer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea

Greg, there was a clear consensus at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Parkes Building and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel Leidig Building that those buildings did not meet the notability criteria for stand alone articles and thus the articles should be merged to the list. This clearly suggests that there are other articles you have created from that list that also do not meet WP:NBUILDING and should be merged back to the list. My guess is if/when they are nominated for deletion, your default position will be to argue for each one to be kept. So in an attempt to work together to avoid that, can I please ask you to suggest here a short list of those buildings on that list that you have created articles for that you believe most clearly meet the notability criteria more than all the others? My hope would be that you can propose your top 3-5, where - after listening to what all the other editors have said about this - you are still confident that there is significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. This should provide a helpful starting point for collaboration. Of course, if you'd also like to list the top 3-5 from that list that you are willing to agree do not meet the notability criteria and should be merged, I'd be very interested to hear that too. Melcous (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Top 3-5 to Keep

• Carmel Weavers Studio, Sade's, Normandy Inn, Philip Wilson Building, Reardon Building

Top 3-5 to Merge

• Bernard Wetzel Building, Fee Building, De Yoe Building, W. C. Farley Building, Spinning Wheel Restaurant

Greg Henderson (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate you including both lists. I will have a look over the next couple of days and get back to you. Other editors are of course welcome to chime in! Melcous (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Jo Mora

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 00:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop the COI editing

I already had to reprimand you above for directly editing articles on which you are being paid to edit, and now you are moving on to directly editing an article with which you have a conflict of interest in, why? All you are doing is providing more evidence that the article-space block should be re-instated. Left guide (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I forgot I was a distant relative of the guy. You are removing a lot of material from this article. Someone needs to put it back with reliable citations. I guess I'll need to revert to edit requests again. This is very time consuming. The edits I am making are coming directly from primary sources. I looking for a secondary source. Byington was a S. F. District Attorney and has a lot of info on him. Thanks for reminding me. I'll hold off for now. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I highly recommend you self-revert your latest edit on the article. Left guide (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added a edit request for these edits here: Talk:Lewis Francis Byington: Edit Request - Bio of Lewis Francis Byington Greg Henderson (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Bot archive error

Not sure if you noticed, but the bot made an error in archiving to User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 45 (which skipped dozens of numbers and also didn't show up on your archive box at the top of the page), so I went ahead and corrected the error by moving it to User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 17. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. Left guide (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this. I am wondering how it got to User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 45? Is it because I have my counter = 45? Greg Henderson (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Tantamount Theater for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tantamount Theater is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantamount Theater until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Graywalls (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Jin Koh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jin Koh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin Koh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Netherzone (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you., the section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_article-space_block_Greghenderson2006 Star Mississippi 22:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Melcous and Netherzone:, courtesy ping as the two of you discussed the idea of this at User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_12 Graywalls (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Delos Wolfe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green Springs.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed issue. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Blue Bird Tea Room

Your response at Talk:Blue_Bird_Tea_Room would be appreciated. Graywalls (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Just tagging him there is sufficient. No need to start discussions in two places. Almost all of the discussions above should be taking place on the relevant article talk pages so that future editors can see past discussions, rather than having to start over when this talk page gets archived. Seasider53 (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph W. Post House has been accepted

Joseph W. Post House, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CoconutOctopus talk 22:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: San Jose Central Fire Station has been accepted

San Jose Central Fire Station, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving discussion

Greg, I don't believe it was appropriate for you to move the conversation from here to the template talk page. The issue is not with the template itself. It is with your use of the template on articles where it is tangential at best. Melcous (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Theodore Criley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Hopper.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: El Castillo de Monterey has been accepted

El Castillo de Monterey, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dan arndt (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for persistent WP:COI and sourcing issues, per ANI consensus [4].

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of El Castillo de Monterey

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page El Castillo de Monterey has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing/copyvios on Joseph W. Post House and El Castillo de Monterey

Hello Greg, your article, Joseph W. Post House that you created last month, has a lot of close paraphrasing/copyvio material as can be seen here: [5] - Earwigs/Turnitin determines a 68.6% similarity with the NRHP Nomination Form. NRHP forms are copyrighted, see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 19#National Register of Historic Places forms, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Resources#NRHP nomination forms.

And your article El Castillo de Monterey created last week shows up as 80.8% suspected copyvio: [6], copied from this website: [[7]]. Even though the FortWiki website has a CC Share Alike License, it should not be used because FortWiki is not a reliable source. Did you give attribution some where?

Are there other articles where you copied from NHRP nomination forms or other forms like the California forms or websites? Netherzone (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted them both. Even copied from government sources that are copyright free, there are attribution/plagiarism concerns as well as WP:COI issues with this editor who has been WP:PBLOCKed from article space by community consensus. No objection to you asking about any additional articles copied from those sources. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph W. Post House has been accepted

Joseph W. Post House, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 10:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Joseph W. Post House

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Joseph W. Post House has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

He has re-created it in draftspace with a lot of the same content @Netherzone @The Wordsmith. I have declined Draft:Joseph W. Post House because I'm unconvinced the issues have been remedied in such a short window and the text is still too similar from my POV. Star Mississippi 17:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I just re-wroe the draft and ran Copyvio Dtector and it says violation unlikely at 29.6 % here. Is this not enough to say the issues have been resolved? Greg Henderson (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It should be single digits, if even that. You're welcome to re-submit it and I won't action it or Castillo. Portions are still far too close to the source. Given your tenure, you should not need to be told this. Star Mississippi 18:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I'll work on it a bit more. What does Castillo mean? Greg Henderson (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

the other draft you immediately re-created after its deletion this morning.

If you're not copying from an offline source, how did you immediately re-create it so quickly? Star Mississippi 18:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Greg, you have been cautioned numerous times to stop using unreliable, self-published sources like personal family history blogs & websites and geneaologies, yet the new draft contains this as a source: [8] which is Billy Post's personal family history blog; and this as a source:[9] which is the Plaskett family's personal blog by Mable Plaskett. What gives? Netherzone (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I keep an offline copy of my articles. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Billy Post was in the only copy I had and forgot to remove it. Thanks for the reminder. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The Plaskett Family blog plaskett.family should not be used either - it is written solely through the lens of Mabel Plaskett and her grandson Bill Alderson[10]. It stands to reason that this is not an acceptable source for use in an encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work on removing these sources. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone:, Broadly construed topic ban on Carmel-by-the-Sea and Monterey County along with the same on the Henderson family and their extended family members is starting to look good with each passing day, isn't it? Graywalls (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC) By the way, the Plaskett.family thing is being discussed at WP:RSN#https://plaskett.family because it was found in numerous articles. Please check it out if you will. Graywalls (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: El Castillo de Monterey has been accepted

El Castillo de Monterey, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 19:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: José Mario Gil Adobe has been accepted

José Mario Gil Adobe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kirk Creek Campground has been accepted

Kirk Creek Campground, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

GnocchiFan (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary L. Hamlin (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mary L. Hamlin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Greghenderson2006! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Olvida Peñas (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Netherzone was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Olvida Peñas and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Netherzone (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Greghenderson2006. Thank you for your work on Kirk Creek Campground. Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I have unreviewed this article, as there are errors. Please double check your work before submitting a draft.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Cueva Pintada (California) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Cueva Pintada (California). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Kirk Creek Campground, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Sourcing to privately uploaded unauthorized journal article copy hosted on drives.google.com Graywalls (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This issue is being addressed at the Talk:Kirk Creek Campground talk page. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Cueva Pintada (California) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Cueva Pintada (California). Thanks! Netherzone (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cueva Pintada (disambiguation) has been accepted

Cueva Pintada (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 22:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cueva Pintada (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Netherzone was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cueva Pintada and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Netherzone (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Greg, this is the type of sloppy sourcing that results in a huge waste of time for other editors, who either have to go through your articles and fix them, or have to deal with endless edit requests to fix problems that were not resolved before it gets moved to article space. It's been requested of you dozens of times to go back through the articles that you have already created and fixing those, rather than continuing to churn out so many new articles. It's difficult for volunteer editors to keep up with this, therefore I again am requesting that you slow down and be more careful and double-check your work rather than expecting others to do this for you. Netherzone (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

and you are continuing to badger editors on Talk:Los Laureles Lodge. @Greghenderson2006 this is a final warning. We are all volunteers here and your edits are not a priority over any other edit request. If you continue to refuse to take the feedback on board and hassle editors, your block is going to be expanded. There is no race to create articles nor an award for more. Take the time to properly source the subjects BEFORE submitting them through AfC. Star Mississippi 02:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Greg, I wanted to give you a heads up. I don't know if you have used Legends of America or www.legendsofamerica.com as a source for any of your other articles or if it was just on this one. There is a discussion going on at the Reliable Sources Notice Board about it that may be of interest. See discussion here: WP:RSN#LegendsofAmerica.com. I'm about 99% sure it will be deprecated. Could you check to see if it was used on any of your other articles, please? If so, just put a note here and I will clean these up for you. Netherzone (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Netherzone for the heads up! I have not used used the www.legendsofamerica.com with other articles. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

OK thank you, Greg, good to know. If you keep an on-wiki or off-wiki list of sources not to use, please make a note of it, since the blog contents cross-over with some of your interests. Netherzone (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Copy & Paste drafts

I have noticed you sourced a commercial website ventanainn.com in Kirk Creek Campground and I noticed a retrieval date was 2016. This source was tracked down to one of the Big Sur related articles where, all along with the retrieval date. Please do not build a draft by copying and pasting contents from other Wikipedia article without verifying the sources. You must also attribute the origin of copying and pasting. It seems rather apparent you copy and paste and do not verify what you're copying against the source. Other users have also complained about bloggy sources being used in your drafts. The AfC is not a place to feed trash, shop different reviewers and hoping it will pass and get published. I am commenting here rather than the article page, because it is not about the article, but about the way you go about things and it has affected your other recent drafts as well. Graywalls (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls, Thank you for pointing this out. It appears you saying that a citation I used is not valid. To put this into context, the citation I used is here: Three tribes of Native Americans, the Ohlone, Esselen, and Salinan, are the first known people to have inhabited the Big Sur area. The Ohlone, also known as the Costanoans, is believed to have lived in the region from San Francisco to Point Sur. The Esselen lived in the area between Point Sur south to Big Creek and inland including the upper tributaries of the Carmel River and Arroyo Seco watersheds. The Salinan lived from Big Creek south to San Carpóforo Creek.

When I used this citation, I was not aware that www.ventanainn.com was not a valid website as it was already provided by the editor who wrote the article talking about the Native American tribes in Monterey County. Your comment says that it is from a WP:BLOGS. I had no idea that it was such a website and will be more careful about using sources from other Wikipedia articles.

References

Greg Henderson (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Greg, things to learn:

• 1. Check the quality of the source before using it. It should have stood to reason that a source called "Ventana Inn" was a privately owned hotel, not a reliable source per WP:RS. It should have been obvious if you had actually clicked on the citation and read it. It clearly says: "15% Off Midweek Escapes" BOOK; 20% off Advance Purchase BOOK; 3rd Night Free BOOK; Spa Escape BOOK; etc., indicating it's a commercial hotel booking website. Yes, it is a nicely designed website, very pretty indeed, but good web design is not the same as good content or reliable sourcing.
• 2. Read a source before using it, and check what the source says against what is written/added to the article.
• 3. Do not do copy-paste edit without attribution, and make sure that you are not importing/transporting errors from another article.
• 4. The reason why this is important: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog.

It takes time, focus, analysis, attentiveness and patience to edit. Slow down, slow waaaayyyy down. You began editing in 2006, it is now 2024 and you still don't understand these very basic things. Netherzone (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary L. Hamlin (March 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mary L. Hamlin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)