User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 19

Buildings - again

Greg, I've just edited the article Carmel Weavers Studio to remove the wording that this building "is significant according to the criteria of the California Register" with the only source being the twenty-one-year-old application to be put on that register. You cannot use a primary source seeking a particular status to then claim in wikipedia's voice that it meets the criteria for that status. That is entirely circular. Do you see the problem? And if so, would you be willing to go back through every other article where you have done this and remove it? Melcous (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think you are trying to do what you think is best for Wikipedia. We can still say the building is signifcant according to criteria published by the California Register of Historical Resources and supported by DPR 523 form for the Carmel Weavers Studio filled out by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. We can collaborate this with the fact the city has placed the building on both the Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey updated on February 2019. In addition to this, there are several books (secondary resources) that document the time, place, and history of the building that help support that the fact that the building is notable as a key landmark of the city.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citing volumerous PDFs

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

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

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

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

Orphaned non-free image File:GF Whitcomb.gif

⚠

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

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

Can you explain…

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

Coincidentally, the Sedletsky house was listed as for sale on the market when this was written, as seen in these real estate listings: [1], [2]. Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please stop spamming government documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow-up

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

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

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

Nomination of Walter Brewer for deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

CS1 error on Jo Mora

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop the COI editing

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

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

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

Bot archive error

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

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

Nomination of Tantamount Theater for deletion

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Jin Koh for deletion

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

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

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

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

LA Momboisse blog sourced contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buildings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is my analysis:

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

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

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

I am sorry, but the URL were not correct.

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

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

Not ture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Delos Wolfe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green Springs. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Blue Bird Tea Room

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Theodore Criley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Hopper. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for Persistent WP:COI and sourcing issues, per ANI consensus [3].

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

Close paraphrasing/copyvios on Joseph W. Post House

Greg, your article, Joseph W. Post House that you created last month, has a lot of close paraphrasing/copyvio material as can be seen here: [4] - Earwigs/Turnitin determines a 68.6% similarity with the NRHP Nomination Form. NRHP forms are copyrighted, see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 19#National Register of Historic Places forms, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Resources#NRHP nomination forms. Netherzone (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC) And your article El Castillo de Monterey created last week shows up as 80.8% suspected copyvio: [5]. Are there other articles where you copied from NHRP nomination forms or other forms like the California forms? Netherzone (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Joseph W. Post House

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

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

The page Joseph W. Post House has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here. Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of El Castillo de Monterey

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

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

The page El Castillo de Monterey has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here. Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg, you have been cautioned numerous times to stop using unreliable, self-published sources like personal family history blogs & websites and geneaologies, yet the new draft contains this as a source: [6] which is Billy Post's personal family history blog; and this as a source:[7] which is the Plaskett family's personal blog by Mable Plaskett. What gives? Netherzone (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The Plaskett Family blog plaskett.family should not be used either - it is written solely through the lens of Mabel Plaskett and her grandson Bill Alderson[8]. It stands to reason that this is not an acceptable source for use in an encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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

@Netherzone:, Broadly construed topic ban on Carmel-by-the-Sea and Monterey County along with the same on the Henderson family and their extended family members is starting to look good with each passing day, isn't it? Graywalls (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

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

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

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

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

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

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Messina Orchard has been accepted

Messina Orchard, 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!

ANU^writes 10:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rhoades Ranch has been accepted

Rhoades Ranch, 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!

ANU^writes 10:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not canvass reviewers

Hi Greg, please do not canvass reviewers to your drafts like you did here at Draft talk:Miller-Melone Ranch. Your drafts are no more of a priority than the other 2k waiting for review. I am not sure you get that you a skating on thin ice with your editing privileges. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

How are Greg's draft consistently getting reviewed so quickly ahead of a lot of other things on queue? Graywalls (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no "queue" so to speak. meaning things are not done any order. It's a pool of drafts and reviewer's pick from that pool what they want to review so some drafts sit for weeks/months while others are reviewed more quickly. The quick ones are usually easy declines or easy accepts. S0091 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Why the rush?

@Graywalls: I appreciate your feedback and concerns regarding the quality of my edits. For me quaility is important.

Regarding your critique of what you perceive as "sloppy, hasty, poor quality edits," I acknowledge the recent incident involving the use of a blog as a source for the Cornish College of the Arts article. If I had been aware that it was a blog, I would not have utilized it. Additionally, I've had discussions with Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight, a community-elected Wikimedia Foundation Trustee, about the use of FamilySearch.org as a citation in her article Miriam O'Leary Collins. She said, "Don't use familysearch.org if it doesn't include a link to a WP:RS for what you want to cite. When it does include it, e.g., census page, death certificate, etc. that is a reliable source."

I strive to adhere to these guidelines diligently and remove unreliable sources whenever necessary. While your approach is characterized by the motto "I write stuff and I erase stuff on Wikipedia," I believe that constructive feedback and encouragement can be more beneficial in fostering improvement.

My recent article Draft:Fairglen Additions tries to follow the Wikipedia rules of a "good article." Your feedback is important to me, and I am committed to improving my editing practices. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving other people's comments from article talk pages

Greg, you selectively deleted my comment from an article talk page, then copied it over here and signed it with my name here. Per WP:TPO do not do this. Graywalls (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

See topic above: Why the rush?. I did not mean to do anything wrong. Just wanted to move the discussion to my talk page instead of having you discuss this topic on the edit request page. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

More incorrect edit requests

Greg, I just undid three edit request fulfillments by a newbie editor who apparently did not read the talk page discussions, nor check the requested text/content against what the sources say and the respective page numbers. This is the second time this has happened with a new editor fulfilling requests. The articles are Reardon Building, Seven Arts Shop and La Rambla Building. If you have made an error on any of your edit requests you should probably close out those requests and start new ones so this does not keep happening, or at least make it more clear what the new request is with the correct information. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fairglen Additions has been accepted

Fairglen Additions, 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!

AntientNestor (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spillman Engineering 3-Abreast Carousel has been accepted

Spillman Engineering 3-Abreast Carousel, 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!

AntientNestor (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Troy Laundry has been accepted

Troy Laundry, 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!

Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lewis Josselyn (April 4)

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

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

Netherzone (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Lewis Josselyn has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lewis Josselyn. Thanks! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Del Monte Station has been accepted

Del Monte Station, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Golden Bough (disambiguation) has been accepted

The Golden Bough (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)