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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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.
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)@ 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)
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)
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.
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
The beach is open to walk-in visitors, and has public restrooms next to the parking lotwhich is clearly encourage visits. Graywalls ( talk) 19:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
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)
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
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)
{{
edit COI}}
template. Post it on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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.
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)@ 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)
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)
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.
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
The beach is open to walk-in visitors, and has public restrooms next to the parking lotwhich is clearly encourage visits. Graywalls ( talk) 19:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
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)
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
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)
{{
edit COI}}
template. Post it on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)