User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 18

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 list list 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 the 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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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: 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)

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 im 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)

@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 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)

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 local 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 me 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)

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)

References

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)

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)

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 (UT

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)

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)

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 uninvolved editors can discuss the proposed edits. 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. @Seaside53:, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)