User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Nomination of Gary W. Lopez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gary W. Lopez 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/Gary W. Lopez 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) 20:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 27–29 Fountain Alley has been accepted

27–29 Fountain Alley, 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!

Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 04:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Moved from Graywalls' talk page

@Graywalls: I would like to talk to you. Is it possible we could discuss here, email, or on the phone. I am concern about your recent messages as I try to improve my editing and provide reliable soruces. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I moved this from my talk page. I am not sure why you're suggesting communication outside of Wikipedia with regard to editing related concerns. In Martin Murphy House, you helped yourself to removing unreliable source tag, yet personal home page and user generated contents based source remained. (as discussed specifically at RSN) For as long as you have been around, it should have been obvious the source is user generated contents. Graywalls (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Greghenderson2006 - Are you actually trying to reinforce the concern of several editors that User:PhilKnight made a good-faith error in unblocking you from mainspace to allow you to resume bad-faith editing in mainspace? I don't believe for a minute that you are trying to improve your editing and to provide reliable sources. There was no reason to ask to conduct that discussion off-wiki with User:Graywalls. I was not sure whether to assume good faith on your appeals and requests, but this request for an off-wiki channel clears up my doubts. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I had no bad intentions. My only goal is to improve my relationship with Graywalls and to be the best Wikipedia editor I can be. I have been a loyal Wikipedian having written hundreds of articles, so feel this chance to prove myself again is important. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I wanted to talk about your recent comments, which is why I reached out to you on your user page. I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's rules on off-wiki discussions. I want to express my desire to enhance our relationship and assure you of my commitment to using reliable sources to edit Wikipedia articles. Regarding the Martin Murphy House article, I made edits last night to remove unreliable sources, but it seems I overlooked a few. I'm committed to ensuring higher quality edits moving forward. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template:California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County has been accepted

Template:California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County, 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 Template-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!

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Since you an unblocked I have decided to submit this on your behalf, and to accept it 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you! Greg Henderson (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: We and Our Neighbors Clubhouse has been accepted

We and Our Neighbors Clubhouse, 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!

Rusalkii (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Greghenderson2006, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ferdinand Burgdorff has been accepted

Ferdinand Burgdorff, 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!

Mach61 (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Greghenderson2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing.
• I now believe in earning trust again and commit to ceasing any further problematic COI editing.
• I've authored 26 new articles since my block, all reviewed and accepted by my peers for inclusion in the main article space.
• Upon unblocking, my intent is to enhance prior articles using credible sources.
• I'll ensure this doesn't recur by consistently utilizing the review process and responding with edit requests.
• My dedication lies in making Wikipedia the best encyclopedia globally.
• Post unblocking, I'll contribute to the Community Portal and Task Center, actively supporting the Wikipedia principles and five pillars.

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Following your unblock request, and the discussion below, I have unblocked. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Drmies: - what are your thoughts about giving another chance? PhilKnight (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • PhilKnight, I am not opposed--but I'm sure you've seen previous comments by others on this talk page. If those doubts are addressed, sure--what I don't see in this useful list of promises is a clear commitment that any future COIs will be abundantly acknowledged. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will wait for Greghenderson2006 to commit to acknowledging future COI. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I want to assure you that I am fully committed to acknowledging any future conflicts of interest on both the article's talk pages and my user page. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@PhilKnight:, I think it would have been nice if those who previously commented on this matter had a say on it or via ANI. Did you happen to consider the fairly consistent community input, such as the oppositions caseted in User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_15 and User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_12? The request came just as all these have been archived. Graywalls (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls:. No I didn't check the archives. Sorry you were not consulted. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't just me. The opposition was nearly unanimous. This kind of sneaky deceptive practices has always been something of a thing with the editor in question. I am not saying your decision is invalid, but I would like you to consider setting aside the decision pending community input to evaluate if these issues continue to exist since you were unaware of what was going on. @Drmies:, what do you think? Graywalls (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Graywalls, I think the now-archived discussions are very important, yes, and you were certainly instrumental in curbing what were clearly abuses. I also think--and I'm sure PhilKnight agrees--that whatever next chance Greg gets will be a last chance. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

If you'd been watching Henderson's edit requests, you'd see multiple attempts with non WP:RS, failed verifications and so on and I believe they're not at the point they should be adding contents on their own, but that's just me. I think that all involved in those discussions should've at least been given an opportunity to comment. I'd like to assume good faith, but they've been around long enough and been told enough times that there appears to be an attempt to litter things not supported with adequate sourcing hoping that some might slip through. Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies, and @PhilKnight – @Graywalls is making valid points. These abuses have gone on for 9 or 10 years. In addition to what Greg is promising regarding COI editing there have been many instances of misrepresenting sources, exaggerating sources, and adding original research and promotional content to his articles. He has received many warnings in the past, and made many apologies and voiced excuses. In addition to what is in Greg's talk page archives, there are many article talk pages with evidence as well. The number of hours other editors have spent cleaning up his articles is vast, and has gone on for a decade. I hope the unblock is reconsidered/re-examined, as I am sorry to say no matter how polite his interactions may be I do not believe this editor can be trusted to create articles directly in the namespace (Article). Being polite and having writing skills does not mean he can be trusted by the community. Netherzone (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent, Robert McClenon, Melcous, BradV, Z1720, and Grand'mere Eugene: as someone who've participated in discussion in prior unblock request or familiar with the users edits. I welcome your thoughts. Graywalls (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

My only involvement has been to remove autopatrolled, but I see no problem procedurally with accepting an unblock request, as I don't recall this being set up as a community-imposed ban. Unblocks are cheap – we can always reblock if the problems continue. (Although I do think that if this opportunity were squandered, a community ban would be the most likely outcome.) – bradv 15:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I am late to this party. Since the unblock has happened I an simply asking for exemplary behaviour. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Count me among the skeptics of Greg Henderson's protestations and promises of better behavior regarding COI, as his subsequent posts seem to be closer to WP:IDHT.

But I have another suspicion about his probable use of ChatGPT, both in articles he posts, and in his responses to discussions on various talk pages. After a 30-year career teaching freshman writing courses at 2 community colleges and 2 universities, I have unfortunately had enough experiences with plagiarised text to know when a text is likely not original to the purported author. I am relieved to have retired before ChatGPT became available.

After Graywalls commented on Henerson's talk page that Greg did not answer if he used ChatGPT/AI when I asked him directly about that hollow, suspiciously pretentious looking apology he offered, Henderson admitted limited use of ChaGPT: I have used ChatGPT to help for spell checking and grammar. I hope this is OK as I like to get things right. My intention is to clear and honest with you.

On yet another talk page query, Grawalls asked, Greg - Did you write this with ChatGPT? Henderson did not respond.

Henderson's failures to account for the sourcing of specific undocumented claims, as well as the tone and tenor of his responses in our talk page discussions, both point to getting text from outside source(s): his COI clients and/or probably ChatGPT. Neither alternative is predictive of any improvements in his behavior writing articles or forthrightness in his talk page postings. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, Greghenderson, you are unblocked. This decision was not supported by everyone in the community of which you are again a part, and I'm sure you understand that you will need to be on your best behavior. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity. This means a lot to me. I'm committed to using reliable sources, utilizing the review process, and following Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You've rehashed this numerous times, but you continue to use questionable sources in a bid to include something you/your clients want even though I think you have a pretty good understanding they don't meet WP:RS. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

There were at least two issues here. One is whether to lift the partial block on User:Greghenderson2006. That is no longer an issue. Since blocks are preventive and not punitive, once a block is lifted, in good faith by a single admin (possibly a good-faith error by the admin), it is not restored except for a new violation. The second is how unblock requests should be considered. That is a policy and procedure issue. I think that it is too easy for a partially blocked user to keep looking for a single admin to lift their block, because once a block is lifted, it will not be reimposed. I would suggest that an editor who is partially blocked but still has access to WP:AN should not request unblock on their talk page, but should be required to request unblock from the community at WP:AN. Maybe this discussion should go to Village Pump. A mistake has been made here that cannot be corrected at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, the idea of only appealing partial blocks has been floated previously, but rejected because a declined unblock would then become a community ban. Appealing partial blocks on the talk page to any passing admin is the correct approach. Admins who place blocks unilaterally need to understand that they can be overturned unilaterally – that's the way our blocking policy has always worked. – bradv 16:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Bradv - Yes, we have always ridden dead horses this way. That is why we have unblockables. who actually are blocked, but don't stay blocked. We have always ridden dead horses this way. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Bradv - Yes. Maybe a conclusion is that blocking administrators should consider whether just to do a single-admin block, that can be undone, and probably will be undone if it is on an established editor, or whether to discuss with the community and obtain community buy-in. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I just removed a mountain of information from your paid client's article Winston Swift Boyer that had inline citations, but sources failed verification. I also reviewed older diffs before other users did cleanup, but the citation you had didn't verify what was said within the article. Did I miss something? For this discussion, I am not asking for the introduction of sources that weren't already provided in the article. I am asking about about the circumstances before the inability to verify those contents with the sources you cited. Graywalls (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The Winston Swift Boyer article was my initial work for a client back in 2022. I apologize for any sources that didn't pass verification. Since 2022, I have learned the critical lesson of ensuring text aligns with citations for reliability. To improve the article, I have asked that some updated text with citations be put back in through the Edit Request process. I'm committed to ensuring that both text and citations come from reputable sources (WP:RS) and will continue to be vigilant about this. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Not having information that's present in source is one thing, but where did the EXTRANEOUS information come from? I am not talking about a little bit. I'm talking about an entire paragraph worth of thing that failed verification with multiple citations that was provided. Graywalls (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, some of the text you're removing from the Swift article, like the mention of Swift attending RLS, actually has supporting citations further down in the paragraph. I'm having to submit Edit Requests to reinstate this text. Also, I acknowledge that using the FamilySearch.org citation was inappropriate, and I've ceased its use in accordance with policy. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: you have not answered Graywalls question about where the extraneous information is coming from. I believe this is a question I and others have previously asked and you have evaded. It feels like you are starting with full paragraphs of content, and then finding sources which you believe provide some verification for that content. When a source is challenged as not verifying the content, you often then provide another source, without suggesting any change to the content. That is very concerning. It would be great if you can answer the question - where is the content in those paragraphs coming from? Melcous (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Some of the content originated from the client last year when I wrote it. I tried to match this with the source citations to support the text. I now understand it's an error to merge content that doesn't align with the citation, and I'll refrain from doing so in the future. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So you're putting contents to the best interest of your client (which often contradicts the best interest of encyclopedia, thus a COI) you want whether or not they're supportable with standards expected on Wikipedia. While you're devoting your Wikipedia time to churn out new pages, you're not prioritizing putting the time to discuss or suggest removal of those information. This leads me to believe you're littering with information you want around staying silent hoping they don't get caught and only taking corrective measures after being discovered. Graywalls (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not my intention. As I said, this was written before I was fully aware of the rules and regulations about WP:RS. I do plan to put in the time to discuss or suggest removal of this information; and certainly plan not to do this in the future. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that you're unblocked from article space, I would like to see you spend all of your wiki-time removing unsourced or client-provided material from articles you have written. That is a clear way forward for you to become a net-positive. – bradv 22:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This is a good plan moving forward. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you, or does your client stand to gain from purchase of services from, or publicity of G-Collective? While you have a habit of adding contents that are not supportable, you added this link as a source with no apparent sourcing purpose. Graywalls (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That was certainly not my intention. The statement was simply a way to descsribe Boyer's use archival pigment printing, much in the way other photographers describe their work, e.g. Equipment and techniques. If you would like, I can avoid such details in the fututre. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

There's been multiple occasions you've included product purchasing websites, such as a link to vendors that sell art. Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not what I wanted to do. I will certainly not do this in the future. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

And you've also submitted numerous edit requests repeating a declined request fairly recently on some articles. Asking dad for permission, because mom said no.. but without disclosing that you've been told no. So to speak. Graywalls (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, not my intention. Not sure what you are refering to but any edit request submissions are done with the intention to update the article with text and a reliable source citation. Probably, the request was declined and the new request helps to clarify the request that was closed. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: to build-up on what Melcous said, this is the type of edit that continues to take place where you shuffle things around to try to preserve your text that is only supportable by unacceptable source. NoeHill was called out, so, you took out NoeHill, removed the maintenance template and simply shoved NoeHill based contents Today, if you walk down Soledad Street, you may see a tent encampment and homeless people. in front of another reference to make it look like it is referenced to a reliable source. Might I suggest you not remove maintenance templates yourself?Graywalls (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I should not have done this. It will not happen again. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This is what you say all the time. This has happened umpteenth times. Are you willing to leave it to someone else to handle maintenance templates? Graywalls (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if that is what you would like. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Highlands Inn, Carmel Highlands

Greg, regarding your request on this article, it takes me many hours to go through your articles for accuracy, and it's almost Christmas, and New Years shortly after that. Some of us travel long distances to be with family and friends that they have not seen for a long time. Some of us also cook and clean and shop and prepare for parties and celebrations. I will try to get to it when I can, but in the meantime, the best solution is to radically change your editing habits so we don't have to go through this over and over again with your articles. Thank you, and happy holidays. Netherzone (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ernest & Emily Renzel House has been accepted

Ernest & Emily Renzel 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.

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) 15:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Highlands Inn, Carmel Highlands

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Highlands Inn, Carmel Highlands, 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) 00:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this was fixed. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

product/company name placement

Connie Wright's writing on Walkerandreed.com Carmel-by-the-Sea law firm website doesn't appear to be WP:RS and all/nearly all of these insertions appear to have been done by you. Please clean them up, and remove the stuff cited through this source. Graywalls (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Greg, why would you think that someone's personal writing on a law firm's website could possibly be a reliable source? This was used as recently as this month. That is not a rhetorical question, I really would like to understand the rationale in your mind why you would consider this would pass the guidelines for reliable sources. Also do you have a connection, personal, professional or financial with Connie Wright or Walker and Reed? Netherzone (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no connection to either. It was simply a website that had info about the subject. I agree that the URL should be updated. A better online version of the book is here: https://carmelcares.org/storiesofoldcarmel/index.html Greg Henderson (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an actual book with an ISBN number. I will update the link to go here: https://carmelcares.org/storiesofoldcarmel/index.html Greg Henderson (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a self published book by the Carmel Residents Association, and published by the Carmel Residents Association. Whether or not it has an ISBN is irrelevant, anyone who self-published a book can purchase an ISBN agency for a little over $100 and some ISBN services sell them for as little as $22.99, and some self-published book print vendors offer them for free. You still do not seem to understand what a reliable source is. Netherzone (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I would note that two weeks ago Greghenderson2006 you agreed with bradv that it would be a good idea for you to spend all of your wiki-time removing unsourced or client-provided material from articles you have written. Since then, not only does it appear that you have not done this, it appears you have instead continued to create new articles of marginal notability linked to what appears to be a walled garden of articles, and made a multitude of COI edit requests with tedious back and forth with other editors over minor and trivial details. This is a huge time suck for other editors. Melcous (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Melcous: I have spent time editing and removing unsourced or client-provided material from articles that I have written. For example, on December 29, 2023, I removed from Ida A. Johnson a familysearch.org reference, as well as on December 25, 2023 for Salmon Fletcher Dutton ‎removed FamilySearch.og related citations. It is true that I have created new articles, but they have reviewed by other editors and do not appear to marginal or linked to a walled garden. For example, I recently wrote the following articles: Ernest & Emily Renzel House, which was placed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as artist Ferdinand Burgdorff. I have also written COI edit requests to support claims about lack of Notability.

As we move into 2024, I propose that instead of emphasizing criticism, that we work together to make it the best year for Wikipedia, for creating great articles, and for me, cleaning up any articles that have unreliable sources. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that was misleading at best, but realistically it looks sneaky as it swaps sources around, removing "verification failed" tag, yet still not verifying some of the factual claims. Here, I am not asking you to introduce further sources, but please show where Her father was Egbert Benton Johnson (1821–1906). Her mother was Cordelia Haight (1821-1908). is supported after the edits you've just completed. Neither of your sources contains "Cordelia". Graywalls (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry that it was not clear in my edits. The simple fix to this issue was to add another citation that supports the claim "Her father was Egbert Benton Johnson (1821–1906). Her mother was Cordelia Haight (1821-1908)." I'll be more careful next time. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 and Melcous:. Greg, you created an article on your grandpa, a whole lot of your extended family members, a bunch of people from Carmel-by-the-Sea, their house and sometimes their business. Many of these articles are full of problem with duplicative contents and fluff, such as extensive coverage on the house in one's biography in addition to creating a separate article on their house. In the house article, there's a whole lot of fluff about the person. I don't think it's statistically plausible that all those people just happen to be really notable and I am going to have to say you're really fluffing up the claim of notability. You even made an article on your mom in 2020, which was deleted with unanimous consensus to delete (with the exception of you). In a small township where everyone knows everyone and they're writing about each other, they may be locally notable but not beyond that. Someone that established the first and only general store in the tiny township is likely respected and notable in THAT micro community but that person would not be notable like Sam Walton The Walton family is of course, untold number of times more notable than Henderson family. Graywalls (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You make some good points. My goal is to fix issues with these articles and avoid creating so many articles about Carmel. Lately, I am focused on places that are on the National Register of Historic Places for California. These homes are already recognized as notable because of their historical or landmark status. If there are any other ways I can help or write better articles, please let me know. I appreciate your concern and feedback. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Stories of old Carmel: a centennial tribute from the Carmel Residents Association reference

@Netherzone: In terms of the book Stories of old Carmel: a centennial tribute from the Carmel Residents Association, it appears to be a reliable source located on WorldCat here. I think it is a valuable resource about people who made Carmel, the founders of the Bohemian tradition, Carmel's colonizing artists, and landmarks. This book is featured in the following libraries: UC Berkeley Libraries, Monterey County Free Libraries, and the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. I will update the articles with the correct citation for this book. Carmel Residents Association is a civic non-profit organization. The OCLC number for the book is 940565140. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Greg, you don't seem to understand that it is a self-published book, meaning the publication is not peer-reviewed by an independent editorial team. As far as it being in WorldCat anyone who sends or donates a copy of the publication to a library and if the library lists it on WorldCat one will find it. It does not confer instant reliability or notability for the publication. It's a catalog where one can find a book (or brochure, or ephemera file, or whatever) in a library somewhere. The publication in question is held in three local libraries, no more, no less - these are two local libraries in Monterey, and the UC Berkeley library. If you do a WorldCat search for the book and filter the search for "peer reviewed content" it does not show up. All WorldCat is is a very useful library resource that lets one know where they can borrow a book - it's kind of like a modern card-catalog (remember thoses?). It's useful to WP because it also has information on the publication that can be helpful like author, date, publisher etc, but it not a "stamp of approval" or an endorsement that a publication is a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW, the author Connie Wright was a BIG donor to the Carmel Public Library Foundation, so it is no surprise her book is in that local library. (donation amounts are easily found info online); and Connie Wright was a longtime member of the Carmel Residents Association who originated the Old Carmel columns in the Carmel Residents Association Newsletter.[1] So it is obviously not a publication independently vetted. Netherzone (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Any material that exists in printed form (such as a "book" or "publication") that is to be used in an article, needs to have an entry for it on WorldCat, meaning, it needs an {{oclc}} number. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Greg, even if it were correct that every source used in an article needs to have WorldCat entry (it's not as your note makes clear), that is not the same as saying that material with a WorldCat entry is automatically a WP:RS - do you not see the difference? And can I ask again, are you using ChatGPT to write your answers here? If so, it is not helping, it just adds to the impression that you are not listening and do not understand what a reliable, independent, secondary source is. I'm starting to wonder whether WP:CIR might need to be part of the discussion of your editing. Melcous (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The self-published, non-peer reviewed book, Stories of old Carmel: a centennial tribute from the Carmel Residents Association, is a primary source that has been used as a reference by Greg Henderson 58 times on Wikipedia in what seem to be several walled gardens. It may be worth looking into how this source is being used. My sense is that it should not be used to support notability of subjects or people, but might be OK to back up some trivial claims as long as they are not just "padding" the articles. Courtesy ping, Melcous, Graywalls. Netherzone (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it should be treated like red sources in WP:RSP that should rarely be used. Have you noticed the disproportionate number of articles per capita on Carmel-by-the-Sea topics? An article on average Joe A, and average Joe A's house and his nephew's sheep farmer relative's farm house.

Principle of due weight should always be considered and Greg articles are almost always too heavy in superfluous details. Graywalls (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not using ChatGPT. Regarding the book, Elaine Hesser wrote about the book Stories of old Carmel in a column in the Carmel Pine Cone saying: "There’s also “Stories of Old Carmel,” published by the Carmel Residents Association. In addition to profiling city founders and famous residents, it covers many of the lesser known Bohemians and tales of events like visits by Charles Lindbergh and Langston Hughes."

References

Greg Henderson (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Greg, I'm not sure you are hearing me. A two sentence mention of the book in a local "Carmel Pine Cone" newspaper (or any newspaper for that matter) does not negate the fact that the book (the source) is a self-published, non-peer reviewed primary source. Having an ISBN, or an OCLC does not matter either. It is not a high-quality source, and should be used with discretion or caution if at all. Netherzone (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Could we consider using it as a starting point and supplemnting it with information from other peer-reviewed sources? Greg Henderson (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Do it in your sandbox. I understand you're not using ChatGPT, but I am not sure if you meant it literally. So, I must ask, are you using Ai bot, or any other means besides manually typing a response to create your response text in Wikipedia discussions even if it isn't ChatGPT specifically? As far as using it to supplement a legit RS, I can see it being reasonable if the RS specifically mentions the resource. For example, Atlanta Jounal Constitution talks about something someone Tweeted, then including that Tweet alongside the AJC article would make sense. Graywalls (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, your sandbox is the place to use this source if it helps you as a starting point, rather than in articles. Netherzone (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am not using any Ai bot, or any other means besides manually typing a response to create my responses in Wikipedia. Happy New Year to you! Greg Henderson (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Greg, I saw that the Hazel Watrous article is actively being worked on. There were eight instances of the self-published primary source, Stories of old Carmel: a centennial tribute from the Carmel Residents Association being used. I've added maintenance tags. Please remove the content that is sourced to that reference, once that is completed, the tags can be removed. Please be cognizant re: synthesis of sources WP:SYNTH, original research or personal opinion/knowledge WP:OR. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Katharine Cooke for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Katharine Cooke 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/Katharine Cooke 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) 21:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hazel Watrous

I am wondering how you came up with the most random URL Prancing Ponies, which, by the way is a WP:COPYVIO WP:ELNEVER https://prancingponies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Carmel-Pine-Cone-June-9-2017-main-news.pdf Carmel Pine Cone is a copyrighted item, and clearly, Prancing Ponies is likely not authorized to host copies. Also, within the citing source, it doesn't support that the house has been rebuilt in past tense. How did you come to that information? Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I did not realize this clip was not coming from the Carmel Pine Cone. Here is the correct URL: http://pineconearchive.fileburstcdn.com/170609PCfp.pdf

I assume it is OK to site the pineconearchive archieve as it is provided here without any copyright restrictions as free subscriptions available at www.carmelpinecone.com. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring to restore preferred unverified version

The new link would be fine on the copyright ground. You need to stop edit warring to restore your own knowledge hoping you won't get caught. Even in the unauthorized copy of the newspaper, it doesn't support the claim the house has been restored by the current owner, yet you edit warred that version back-in. Stop. In the story, the homeowner was quoted they want to restore it and in talks with insurance. Failed verification has been an ongoing issue with your edits, and still is an issue. Graywalls (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, your point is understood. I have corrected the issue by citing that the house was restored from a new article titled: After 100 years, the epic history of Harmony House. In the future, I won't be so quick to correct an edit without checking all of the text in the sentnece. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You're dodging questions again, as usual. Where did you come up with the claim the house was restored by the current owner initially? and why did you edit war this information back into the article after already having been called out about it and having claimed you understood my concern You had to be reverted twice, before you came up with a supporting source. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The initial claim that the house was restored by the current owner was known to me via: research that I did on the property and visiting the property to take pictures. The edit before finding the actual citation was a user error, which I corrected when you were kind enough to point it out. To be honest with you, I will be more careful about this. I know you have heard this before, but I tend to work fast and need to learn to slow down and double-check my work before pushing the publish button. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Parents

The prose said her father was Stephen West. The included source said his name is Stephen Watrous and mother was not mentioned. Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, I think we ought to just omit it. Greg, removing unreliable/questionable source also means taking out the contents assocaited with it. Graywalls (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Her father was Stephen Watrous. I have added a citation to the article about her father and left her mother out. I added citations to back up the claim that she graduated from San Jose State College and did advance degree work at the California School of Arts and Crafts, and with painter Gottardo Piazzoni. I think this is important because these were important influences that led up to her being a supervisor of art at a high school and being a co-founder of the Carmel Bach Festival. I will understand if you think differently, but wanted to bring this to your attention. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

See the article's talk page about the restoration of "she took some classes at some school", which is something I have removed with explanation. Graywalls (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Posting of URL with potential of inducing purchase of products/services

You posted a Carmel Bach Festival ticket purchasing linkhere just in time for festival, and you created articles on the founders right during the 2023 festival. You've also posted numerous links in the past that is likely to induce the purchase of services in real world with real money, such as various art purchasing websites, voicemap.me that could potentially induce the purchase of a Carmel-in-the-Sea tour host's walking tour. Given the ticketing site insertion as recent as July 2023 by which time you should have been aware of WP:RS, and being found doing UPE, it appears you maybe inserting these links for commercial promotional purposes to induce what I just described above. Graywalls (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not create this Wikipedia page. I do not remember putting any purchasing link here. The page was created by user:Muellerdouglas. If you look at the history you will see I mainly added links to Denny and Watrous. If I did it was not intentional to support any purchasing of tickets. Looks like the link has been removed. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Because, I removed it. I showed you exactly where YOU inserted it. You created the Denny and Watrous pages just in time for 2023 festival timing. Why would you even think that a ticket buying link should be used as a source? Graywalls (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The text said: "In 2023, the Carmel Bach Festival will hold its 86th Season on July 15-29, 2023." My intention was not to support any purchasing of tickets. I am sorry. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I've been trying assume good faith with most of the accusations thrown at you on a daily basis here (although I do think the discussions should be taking place on the relevant article talk pages), but you're making it very easy for them to reintroduce a ban, which seems to be the end game for some editors here. Your daily apologies and statements of “I will strive to do better” will only get you so far. Seasider53 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'm working on steps to improve my articles and edits moving forward. I relaize I have made some mistakes in the past. My plan is to focus on WP guidelines and seeking mentorship from experienced editors. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The concerns on hand isn't the kind of reasonable mistake one might make, like not realizing NYPost is considered unreliable while NY Daily News is fine. We're talking about disregarding heeds and having continued to use FAMILYSEARCH until told about numerous times and using ridiculously poor sources like blogspot and personal websites that go nowhere near reaching WP:EXPERTSPS status. This is after the same editor have previously cuted his own blog hendersonfamilytree and has been clearly made aware not to use blogs. Graywalls (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I no longer use blogs, familySearch.org, or Ancestry.com. I am fully aware that these are unreliable sources, which were used in previous articles. All articles written since about August 2023 have none of these sources. My plan is to root out any of these sources in my articles and abide by the Wikipedia guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So then, why have you been removing them and sometimes removing maintenance templates while leaving behind contents based on poor sources? Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is my process, let me know how I can improve it?

1) Remove the unreliable sources - save results

2) Add reliable sources to replace the ones I removed - save results

3) Remove tag for unreliable sources. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

But sometimes, you leave it behind like this only to be discovered poorly sourced later. If not discovered, it causes the article to look well sourced even when it isn't.

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. It seems like you're always rushing to clear maintenance tags/templates. Why? Graywalls (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, sound like a good plan. If you prefer, I can leave the maintenance tag. Who will remove the maintenance tag? Greg Henderson (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, I think it may be best to leave the maintenance tags and let another editor re-review the articles and remove the tag(s) given that there have been a lot of mistakes and use of unreliable sources for about a decade now. I appreciate your willingness to improve, however the issues have been occurring for so long now, and continue to occur, that (at least to my way of thinking) it seems advisable and sensible for you to go ahead with your clean-up efforts on all your articles, but leaving the final source checking and removal of the tags to others. Does that make sense to you? Netherzone (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am willing to do this. My goal is to cleanup and improve the articles and will leave the final checking and tag removal to others. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Why are you regularly rushing to remove the tags going so far as to asking for the tags to be removed? It comes across as getting rid of the tag is a higher importance to you than fixing the underlying issue. Why is the maintenance template such an issue to you? Graywalls (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

When tags get placed on an article, it appears as a badge of shame. Sorry about that. I need not to be so worried about the maintenance tags and more concern about the content. I understand the tag serves a purpose and will leave them alone. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:25, 3 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, Maintenance tags are NOT a badge of shame, you should try to get over that way of thinking on this collaborative project that is Wikipedia. The purpose of maintenance tags is to alert other editors on the project that a particular article is in need of attention. There is no deadline for removal, one reason for this is that 99% of us are unpaid volunteers and have other things going on in our lives, so often it takes months or years to resolve the issues.. Another reason (more important) is that the issues identified in the tag must be resolved before the template is removed. It does not make sense in the long haul to do a partial or sloppy slap-dash job of clean up just to make a template disappear. Please refrain from thinking of them as a badge of shame, think of them instead as a "heads up" to the community, which is what they are. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. Netherzone (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Netherzone for this explanation. It helps to understand that "all" the issues must be resolved before the tag is removed. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles King Van Riper for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles King Van Riper 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/Charles King Van Riper 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) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Helen MacGowan Cooke for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helen MacGowan Cooke 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/Helen MacGowan Cooke 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) 11:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Mary L. Hamlin has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mary L. Hamlin. Thanks! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this comment. I will reply on the Hamlin talk page. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Mary L. Hamlin has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mary L. Hamlin. Thanks! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Francis Doud

I have reverted your edit because you changed the source that is named "DPR" and replaced it with another one, and then manually went through and removed all the "verification needed" tags that had been added back in August 2023. Except that the new source does not verify any of the content it is linked to. Can you please explain this? And why are you again changing references without any changes to the content it is linked to? Melcous (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I updated the URL to the DPR source citation:

• DPR 70. This citation covers the Doud bulding built by James Cooper Doud Doud's grandson.
• You also removed the this citation, which was an attempt to document the the parents of Francis Doud: James Doud and Winifred Churchill and to resolved the tag. I am wondering if this is not a good citation. It is a real document from 1820 that, if you think better, can be uploaded to Internet Archive.
• Your were correct in reverting the other DPR citations. The correct citations has been added now from the Department of Parks and Recreation. Thanks for catching this! Greg Henderson (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Discussion at Talk:Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy) § Requested move 6 January 2024

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy) § Requested move 6 January 2024. Should Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy) be moved to Medici Chapel, Medici Chapel (Michelangelo), New Sacristy or Sagrestia Nuova? Ham II (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)