User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 12

August 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"Moving forward"--OK. I've seen enough, enough vague apologies and deflections. I am blocking you from directly editing the main space, so you can focus on moving your COI/UPE articles through via the draft process; somewhere above you indicated that you were willing to do that. You can also make a different choice: stop with the COI creations and become a regular article editor again, and then we might could undo the partial block. And perhaps you can get to a place where you can honestly edit the main space, that is articles with which you have no COI, and reserve your COI articles to draft space, never editing them directly again if they move into main space. There's options here, on our part and on your part, but for now, I think there's broad agreement here that we've had enough of this waffling. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

· I admit that I avoided saying I was a paid editor on pages I created for interested parties. Out of 400+ pages created there were 8 paid articles. I was Autopatrolled and in good standing until now. · I promise to stop not disclosing COI paid contributions and use the draft process.
· I won’t do it again. · I am here to help contribute to the Wikipedia encyclopedia. I enjoy doing the research that is necessary to write and contribute to insightful articles that others can enjoy like the articles on ‘’Carmel Valley, California (25,619 pagevies) and Butterfly House (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), (5,894 pageviews) and others.

Decline reason:

Per conversation below; try again in a few months once you've demonstrated you can write articles compliant with our policies and Terms of Use. – bradv 20:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Greg Henderson (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Greghenderson2006, some questions:

1. You say that there were 8 paid articles, can you post below which pages these were?
2. What is COI and why must editors disclose their COI when editing the site? WP:COI will help.
3. How are editors with a paid conflict of interest suppose to declare their COI? WP:PAID will help.

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: The paid articles are: Zearn, Gary Hugh Brown, Gary W. Lopez, Winston Swift Boyer, Washington Review, Nyombi Morris, Robert W. Smart, and Jin Koh. COI means Conflict of Interest. Editors need to disclose their COI to bring attention that they are a paid contributor to the article. They declare their paid COI on the article's talk page. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Please give much more detail in your responses to questions 2 and 3. Particularly, why does Wikipedia have editors with a paid COI disclose this status when making edits to Wikipedia? What are the various ways that an editor can disclose their COI status on their talk page? Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, for question 2, the answer is that editors must disclose they are a paid contributor because they may have a conflict of interest as they are being paid by the person that hired them; and this would violate the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. For example, if some paid me to write an article, I might write it in such a way that is promotional or not from a neutral point of view. More info is listed here: WP:COI, WP:PAID. For question 3, editors with a paid COI need to disclose who is paying them and who is the client, on thier user page, and/or on the talk page of the article. For example, on the article's talk page the template looks like this: "Connected contributor (paid)| User1=greghenderson2006|U1-employer= | U1-client= |U1-otherlinks=. I hope this answers your questions. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments by others

I'm surprise it hasn't even been a day and he's already appealing. It almost comes across as entitled. I object. I think it should go through AN for community input. This request he left with regard to my tag at outrageously promotional non-encyclopedic writing he has created in Zearn shows he's concerned with damage control for protecting his business interest more than anything. What steps can we take to remove the Paid contributions tag from the Zearn article? The tag has already been placed on the talk page. It's important to the client that the tag doesn't suggest that this is a paid contribution. in addition to being undisclosed paid editing, the article itself is unacceptable. It's pretty bad now and it reeked of spam initially. Special:Diff/1171512626 Graywalls (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I am appealing because I have a right to do so and feel I was blocked prematurely. In terms of the request to remove the tag on the main article, it makes sense in lite of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, which say: "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. Based on this, it seems to make sense that once a tag is placed on the article's talk page, it can be removed from the article page. Of course, it the article has other issues, other tags can be placed on the article page. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Right, you violated the Terms of Use (which you are notified of with every edit you make), and you expect that there won't be any consequences. You're already being treated leniently by being allowed to edit at all – but you can put a pause on mainspace editing while we check your work. That's not an unreasonable ask. – bradv 20:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Greg, your COI editing and deception has been going on for 10 years, and yet you continued to break the trust of the community and breach our policies and guidelines. You knew exactly what you are doing. Then you graduated to WP:UPE which you knew very well was wrong because you were given the COI and PAID policies and guidelines by multiple editors over the years. Your "I'm sorry I made a mistake, I won't do it again" claims ring hollow. Why would these "oopsy!" claims suddenly be true now? Please stop playing the clueless victim. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You make it sound so bad. Actullay I was in good standing with a Autopatrolled status. You are bringing up an old COI status that was several years ago. Just because I violated the WP:PAID COI now, you think I am all bad. Give me a break and realize what you are saying to a fellow human being that loves Wikipedia. I was honest to admit being paid for my contributions and even volunteered full disclosure. Let's move on from this. It would be best for everyone. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Greghenderson2006, moving on from this would look like you accepting for at least the next few months that you can still write wikipedia articles but they need to go through the WP:AFC process, and they need to fully disclose any payments and any and all Conflicts of interest (and hopefully that you start writing in a much less promotional style). The fact that you can still do this and are not completely blocked is, I think, a sign of good faith. You immediately appealing that above is not. Melcous (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with what you are saying. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

And if he is reinstated, I expect NO DIRECT EDITING of articles for which he's paid or have COI with, and no making pages of his parents, children, etc. Just so Greg doesn't misinterpret it, I am NOT suggestion his reinstatement should be expedited. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006:, no direct editing of articles in which you have a Conflict of Interest, such as those you're paid to edit. Agreeable? As written in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure, you're very strongly discouraged from doing so. What does this mean? This is comparable to things off-wiki that are not criminally prosecutable but essentially prohibited by social contract. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You agree on what? Please be specific. I am concerned you are going to direct edit and simply say you agree with what I said, but you didn't explicitly agree to refrain from direct editing. Are you willing to abide by restrictions to not directly editing articles you have a COI with, if you're re-instated? Graywalls (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree with not directly editing articles in which there is a conflict of interest, especially those that I'm being compensated to edit. I am willing to abide by the restrictions to not directly edit articles that I have a COI with once I am re-instated. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you also willing to abide by not gaming the system? This means you're not going to draft out how you want to do it, send it to your friend/family members and have them do it the way you want it and claim that you didn't directly edit it. What I mean is that you will direct all requested edit through {{edit COI}} is that clear? Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I will direct all requested edits through the review process. I will not try to game the system. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You will try or you will not? Netherzone (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I will not game the system or engage in any type of system manipulation. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope this block can be undone in time. The editor has done an admirable job creating articles outside of the paid ones. Seasider53 (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53, I think we all agree that Greg has writing ability. However, there is some history to be aware of...even many of his non-paid COI articles have had to get cleaned up for NPOV and PROMO. It was an exhausting task, that @Possibly, @Graywalls, @Melcous and I spent many hours on. I think all of his article creations need to be reviewed again under a closer lens including non-COI and non-PAID entries since he tends to write a lot of things that are not supported by the sources. Whether or not that is "innocent" original research, I think the next best step for the encyclopedia and its readers is to carefully review them/re-review them since they were created while autopatrolled. Netherzone (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Seasider53: for your kind words. I appreciate it. @Netherzone: as you review them, it would be nice to point out any good as well with the bad. An ounce of encouragement can go a long way. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Greg, forgive me, but I am going to be blunt again. I am not your employee nor your teacher, nor am I interested in hand-holding. Please do some self-reflection. And read and digest our policies and guidelines and also the essay WP:Buy one get one free that I linked above. Wikipedia's unpaid volunteer labor force is mopping up after your COI/UPE systemic bias. You should not ask volunteers to subsidise the COI/PAID marketplace and devote their valuable time to increasing your profit margin. WP:BOGO clearly spells out that it's a win/win/lose situation, not a win/win as you have claimed in one of your posts above and seem to believe. Guess who wins? You (you get paid), and your client (who gets an article). Guess who loses? The volunteers who then have to waste their time cleaning up after you and then teach you over and over to respect the policies and guidelines of our incredible encyclopedia. Come on man, have some integrity, don't ask us to work even harder for you for free! Again, I apologize for being so direct, but you do not seem to be hearing what is being said. Netherzone (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Again you sound so negative. I am not asking volunteers to subsidize the COI/PAID marketplace. I would like to think that articles written, Paid or not Paid, are well written. I go through many drafts with source citations to get them right before publishing. I avoid using puffery, and keep a neutral point of view. However, I am not perfect. If cleanup is necessary, then that is from another point-of-view that may have more experience than I do. I appreciate what you are saying but it should not be a burden or a waste of your time. I do have integrity and hear what you are saying. Please keep in mind we both have the same objective: respect for the policies and guidelines and love what we are doing. Wikipedia is an incredible encyclopedia that interlinks articles together to make learning fun! Let all enjoy it in our short time we have on this planet. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If this were a global ban, I would oppose it, but an article-space ban still provides substantial leeway for improvement of content. For example, it is still possible for you not only to propose edits on article talk pages, but to create substantially complete drafts in draft space, or mock up a proposed revision in user space to propose as a replacement for existing article content. I would suggest working within the constraints of the current restriction and seeing what you can do there. I frankly do not think this will go as well for you if this were to end up at ANI. BD2412 T 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that I will work within the constraints of the current restriction. I appreciate your advice and good intentions. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Were you paid to create Jin Koh?

This article reads like it is based on an interview with the subject, and the sources I have investigated so far do not verify the kind of content it includes at all. It is written almost entirely subjectively and promotionally. Do you see how problematic this is? Melcous (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Melcous: I understand your concerns, and I appreciate your feedback. I want to assure you that I'm committed to upholding Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and verifiability in all the articles I contribute to. Regarding the Jin Koh article, I can confirm that I was paid to create it. Sorry about not adding it sooner. I can't think of any other paid articles that I have not already disclosed. However, I acknowledge your point about the content's tone and potential promotional aspects. I apologize if the article seems subjective or promotional; that was certainly not my intention. I will carefully review and revise the article, ensuring that it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines and accurately represents the subject. Your input is valuable, and I'm here to address any issues and improve the quality of the content. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You did not disclose this when you were asked earlier, but held it back until you were very specifically asked by the specific article. Graywalls (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for any misunderstanding. It was not my intention to withhold information. I appreciate your thoroughness in seeking clarity on this matter. If there are any more questions or concerns, please feel free to ask, and I'll provide the necessary information promptly. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure, where do you solicit for and/or receive leads to your editing service? If a broker was involved, that's gotta be revealed. Graywalls (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I primarily use LinkedIn as a platform to connect with potential clients. I do not engage brokers in my editing service, and there is no involvement of external parties in bringing me clients. I'm committed to transparency and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, and I maintain the highest ethical standards in my contributions. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This is very concerning. Greghenderson2006, you keep saying things like "I am committed to upholding wikipedia's standards of neutrality and verifiability in all articles I contribute to", but these are just words - your actions demonstrate the complete opposite. You have only acknowledged promotional tone when specifically asked about it, and you have continued not to be fully transparent in your disclosures. You say it was not your intention to be subjective or promotional, yet it sounds like you let your clients write whatever they want about themselves, then copy and paste it into an article, and find a few references to add, regardless of whether they actualy verify what is said (and certainly without editing the wording for neutrality). I'm not sure what the next step is, but am wondering Graywalls and Drmies if it should be COIN or ANI rather than continuing this discussion here? Melcous (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Melcous: I appreciate your feedback and concerns. I understand that my approach hasn't been ideal, and I apologize if my disclosures weren't as transparent as they should have been. You're right in pointing out that addressing promotional tone and ensuring neutrality should be consistent throughout the content creation process. It's not my intention to let clients dictate content verbatim; I aim to work collaboratively to create balanced, accurate, and neutral articles that adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. I genuinely appreciate your suggestion regarding the next course of action. If feasible, I would prefer to explore alternatives to COIN or ANI. I want to express my gratitude for highlighting these issues, and I remain dedicated to enhancing my contributions while effectively addressing the concerns that have been raised. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Netherzone:, any input? I know you were active during the time of Greg's family memorialization effort when he was making aggrandizing puffy articles about his extended family members Graywalls (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought Greg had changed his ways re: COI editing, and I had learned to trust him, however it looks like he was engaging in Undisclosed Paid Editing. I didn't know he was doing paid editing at all. UPE is very serious and is an abuse of the encyclopedia and a breach of the community trust. Is his paid editing disclosed on his user page? How long has it been going on? I'm really disappointed to learn of this, and I too am wondering if it should go to COIN or ANI considering the long history of COI and promotional editing. Netherzone (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like he only added the PAID template to his user page yesterday. How long has he been engaging in UPE? Netherzone (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Since the beginning of 2023, he said. He only disclosed them after he got called out with regard to Zearn and only after he was questioned directly. I asked him to disclose anything else for which he's been paid for. He didn't disclose about Jin Koh until Melcous directly questioned him. Graywalls (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Netherzone:, @Graywalls: the UPE actually goes back to at least July 2022 with Winston Swift Boyer, although again this was only disclosed in response to specifically being asked. Melcous (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Melcous and @Graywalls, this is a serious breach of our policies/guidelines. And it's not that he "should" have known better - he did know better and engaged in this behavior anyways. Netherzone (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Y'all, I really don't know what to do or say here. On the one hand, I'm really tired of it and I agree with Melcous's "you keep saying things like", and perhaps our bucket is empty. Greg, you're not filling up our bucket; cliches aren't filling. On the other, I'm also always one for last chances, but what we get from Greghenderson here is so hollow. At the same time, he's been here for a while, and has probably done some good things. Then again, I'm just baffled at the responses we are getting--it's like ChatGPT could have written them. Maybe we should take this to ANI and let the community decide. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Several of us spent a LOT of time cleaning up his earlier articles, worked with him closely to mentor him so he would comply with our policies and guidelines. He knew he was not supposed to engage in this behavior and just went ahead and did it anyways. It shows a deep disregard for the community standards and is a serious breach of trust. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies:, I've been trying to put my finger on why these responses feel a bit off, and I wonder if you haven't hit the nail on the head - they really do read like ChatGPT has written them, responding precisely to what is being asked, but not demonstrating any self-awareness or additional insight. I'd agree that ANI and community consensus is probably needed. Melcous (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

A second chance would be nice. I promise to abide by WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:PAID, and put new articles through the WP:AFC. Let's make a win-win situation. You have put me through enough humiliation. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Greg, when User:Possibly (a.k.a. ThatMontrealIP and I were working with you several years ago you kept asking for second chances back then, and you were extended second chances numerous times. I think Graywalls was part of those conversations too. You have been COI and UPE editing for a long time, and you were fully aware of it. I'm actually extremely disappointed in your dishonesty. Netherzone (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I ran his texts above in GPTZero and it came back as 63% This text is likely to be a mix of human and AI text. There is a 63% probability this text was entirely written by AI Sentences that are likely written by AI are highlighted. - 12/21 sentences are likely AI generated.

This is what is shows as highlighted as likely written by AI:

I apologize for any misunderstanding. It was not my intention to withhold information. I appreciate your thoroughness in seeking clarity on this matter. If there are any more questions or concerns, please feel free to ask, and I'll provide the necessary information promptly. I'm committed to transparency and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, and I maintain the highest ethical standards in my contributions. I appreciate your feedback and concerns. I understand that my approach hasn't been ideal, and I apologize if my disclosures weren't as transparent as they should have been. You're right in pointing out that addressing promotional tone and ensuring neutrality should be consistent throughout the content creation process. It's not my intention to let clients dictate content verbatim; I aim to work collaboratively to create balanced, accurate, and neutral articles that adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. I genuinely appreciate your suggestion regarding the next course of action. If feasible, I would prefer to explore alternatives to COIN or ANI. I want to express my gratitude for highlighting these issues, and I remain dedicated to enhancing my contributions while effectively addressing the concerns that have been raised. Netherzone (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Netherzone and Greghenderson2006:, Greg, did you use AI to write this? Graywalls (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

oh and there was this. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Greghenderson2006 in October 2020 Graywalls (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Netherzone: I feel Greg tends to be deceptive. This request was especially manipulative to to put in a request edit for something Melcous removed as if he was making a fresh request to unsuspecting editors looking through edit requests omitting that he's trying to get something that's been removed by another editor but wants it inserted: Talk:Alexander_D._Henderson_(businessman)#Request_Edit_4. Talk:Alexander_D._Henderson_(businessman)#Citation_requested, Here, he was awared FAMILY SEARCH is not a acceptable search, yet he continues to churn out articles cited to FamilySearch and sometimes FINDAGRAVE and he'd remove them only on articles that gets called out but ignore the rest. Graywalls (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC) @Melcous:

I do not mean to be deceptive. In was a simple case of an edit request to add back the File:ADH Goetting McConnell.jpg that was removed along with other text and citations with the reason "remove non-encyclopedic obituary like content and unsourced content". In terms of FamilySearch and FindAGrave, I understand these are not recommended. The only exception is when they include valuable insights to census records, images, or date of birth, etc. I believe they are allowed, according to the guidelines, in some cases as an external link, but realize they are not recommened, so have lately avoided them altogether. I do try to follow the guidelines and will do so moving forward. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls, I was going to strongly suggest this be brought to COIN or ANI, but it looks like @Drmies has rightly blocked access to Article Space. Thank you. The COI editing and deception has been going on for 10 years, and yet Greg continues to break the trust of the community and breach our policies and guidelines. The "I'm sorry I made a mistake, I won't do it again" claims ring hollow. Why would these claims suddenly be true now? Netherzone (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I am an honest person and try to abide by the rules. I am not perfect. Please do not make me feel any worse than I do now. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Netherzone:, Unbelievable he's already appealing. Graywalls (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Greg, you have not been honest with our community for the past ten years. How long are you going to play the, "oops! my mistake, and oversight on my part, I'm trying so hard to be good, really I am! But gosh I goofed again" GAME? If that in fact is "honesty" in your world, than I seriously wonder whether you have the competence to edit the encyclopedia. WP:CIR How many more hours do other editors have to spend cleaning up your work? Netherzone (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Another ugly comment. I have been honest with our community for the past ten years! I have worked on hundreds of Wikipedia articles that get thousands of pageviews. Let's give credit with credit is due. I admit I violated the WP:PAID policy and reget doing so; and now partially blocked. It was a mistake that I honestly admit and will not repeat. So let's move on. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Greg, I am sorry that it is hard for you to hear what I have said above and I apologize for being so blunt. However I am angry because I spent a lot of time cleaning up your articles in the past, mentoring you to follow our guidelines, and to rebuild trust. I have spoken to others about how you had changed your ways because I believed that you had, but now feel like myself and others have been fooled. Indeed you created a lot of articles, but now others must take the time to go through all of your articles to check your work again. Including reading and analyzing the sources in relation to the content. Please try to see it from the point of view of those who will be doing that extra work when their time could be much better spent on other things. We do this as unpaid volunteers, unlike you. Reflecting on this will help you to understand the impact of your actions on the community. Netherzone (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with your assessment. I look forward to mending our relationship. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Please be considerate of the time the unpaid labor force will have to spend fulfilling edit requests as we are a finite source, not an infinite resource. I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free otherwise known as WP:BOGO. Netherzone (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, I will be mindful of the effort editors invest in handling edit requests. I've gone through the "Buy one, get one free" concept and I'll need time to comprehensively grasp its meaning. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Zearn

Hi Greg, as you reflect on your editing, can I please draw your attention to the recent edits I have made to Zearn, seen here. I tried to carefully go through every source cited in the Research and Reviews section to see if they actually verified what you had written, and sadly found much of it was blatantly misleading and misusing the sources. I'd be very interested to know what you think and if you can explain where you got the content from and why you used the sources you used when they did not back up the claims made. I hope this could be an initial learning exercise as you seek to ensure any future editing meets core guidelines like WP:NPOV and WP:V. Thanks Melcous (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I can run this by the team at Zearn, but my reaching the source citation, "Data from a recent TNTP study in partnership with Zearn," has a link within the sentence. Did you check on the study link? There, on the second page under Methodology, in the chart, it says "extending to a month or more of instruction." So, this source measures up to the statement "gains equivalent to an additional 1.5 months of learning." Perhaps they should quote both sources and include the citation for TNTP. Thanks for pointing this out. Perhaps you can revert the change or I can notify the Zearn team to update it as they may not be looking at your online edits? Greg Henderson (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Greghenderson2006 I am not interested in what the team at Zearn thinks; I am not here to help your client. I was trying to help you as you consider how your editing could improve going forward, but the fact that you have now suggested that the Zearn team could update the article is a massive red flag for me. They too would be engaged in paid editing if they did so. There were many, many more issues than that one that I have pointed out and sought to address there, and as Netherzone has noted above, I've done so as a volunteer editor who now feels like I am wasting my time because your only interest appears to be in what your client is happy with. I won't seek to point things out to you any further, even though I may continue to tidy up some of the articles you have created because I think they need serious reviewing for these kinds of issues. I hope you take a break from editing because you really do not seem to be getting what the core issue is. Melcous (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern for my editing. I appreciate it. I was only pointing out your edits for clarity. If it is OK, updates to the Zearn article can go through a Request Edit on the talk page, correct? I think that might be the best way to update the article without breaking any rules. I do understand the core issue, which is not to engage in paid editing. Thanks for your understanding. As a volunteer you are not wasting your time but helping to improve Wikipedia! Greg Henderson (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [And by the way, the article you link to does have a chart that defines remediation as "extending to a month or more of instruction". That is in no way, shape, or form the same as the claim that research from Harvard found that students using Zearn "demonstrated achievement gains equivalent to an additional 1.5 months of learning ... in Louisiana schools", which is the content you wrote (or, I suspect, pasted from what your client had written) into the article and then later added that source to. That you are willing to argue that that source verifies that content demonstrates a serious competence issue.] Melcous (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I think the best way to handle this is through a Request Edit on the talk page. That way, you are another editor can accept or reject the change. Sorry about any incompetence shown on my part. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would say the core issue here is far beyond simply not engaging in paid editing. It is understanding what a neutral point of view is, and how verification works, so as to then not engage in any kind of promotionalism, paid or unpaid. Far, far too many of your edits now need to be reviewed, and as they are being reviewed, are revealing these same kinds of issues. It's really disappointing. I agree with the editor who noted above that if this were to go to ANI, I don't think it would go well for you. Nor do I think your continued explanations here are necessarily helping you. It seems to me you'd be best served by taking a deep breath and walking away from editing wikipedia completely for a time, but that's just my opinion. Melcous (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Melcous:, maybe WP:IDHT is more relevant than competence. Graywalls (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: yes IDHT is definitely relevant, but in this case I am quite shocked at the lack of reading comphrension/competence required to argue that that one mention of the word "months" in the source linked goes anywhere near verifying the specific details it was used to. Melcous (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Check this out. Look at the part about Harvard thing. In the footer of the cover page in the GOOGLE DOCS pdf Greg cited, it said: This summary report has not been formally reviewed or edited. The findings and conclusions expressed are solely those of the author who is a former employee of Zearn, with no financial stake in the organization, and a former research fellow with the Louisiana Department of Education. Funding for this project was provided by Overdeck Family Foundation, which provides general operating support to Zearn. I objected to this because I think it's too intertwined with Zearn. Anyways, I think this is the author's page: https://scholar.harvard.edu/shirinhashim/publications/measuring-effectiveness-zearn-math-louisiana and it says it's a Working paper, so not even peer reviewed. So, I just took that whole part out. Greg put it back in word-for-word with a different citation. Personally, I think he's primarily concerned with keeping the text as close to the original of what's sent to him by the client as possible and sticking sources around it and counting on nobody thoroughly fact checking.

Greg did not answer if he used ChatGPT/AI when I asked him directly about that hollow, suspiciously pretentious looking apology he offered. Graywalls (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes for the Google Doc mistake. I really appreciate it. I have used ChatGPT to help for spell checking and grammar. I hope this is OK as I like to get things right. My intention is to clear and honest with you. The Zearn article is attempting to explain, in encylopdia terms, what Zearn is and how it is helping elementary school students with math. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, one viable option remains. AFD TNT → Delete Graywalls (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: in the small number of articles I have reviewed so far, there is an awful lot of WP:OR. Even with non-paid articles, this might need to be an option considered. Melcous (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Concerns regarding article accuracy, NPOV, OR, bias and sourcing in relation to clean up time

Graywalls and @Melcous, et. al. - I just finished spending several hours reviewing the Francis Doud article and checking all of the sources and there were a lot of inaccuracies and puffery. This is only the first new article where I completely checked each source, and I am very concerned about the time that will be involved considering there are 425 articles to check. I know the two of you have also encountered original research, inaccurate sourcing, NPOV, bias, OR and puffery. Any idea on what could be done without spending dozens if not hundreds of hours cleaning up the articles that were created while he was autopatrolled (in addition to the COI/UPE articles)? Do you think they should all be stubbed, TNT'd or should this be brought to a notice board or what ? Netherzone (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 are any of your edits done as a collaboration with community organizations, non-profits, local government agencies in and around Caramel in the Sea Carmel-by-the-Sea, such as the city, county, tourism association (including but not limited to) ? Graywalls (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls, I think you mean Carmel-by-the-Sea, no? To expand on your question to Greg, that should also include the Monterey Peninsula, Pacific Grove and Pebble Beach.

something like that Graywalls (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006, have you ever used SignalHire or a similar online service like LinkedIn or UpWork to advertise your paid WP editing services? Netherzone (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No, none of my edits are done with collaboration with community organizations, non-profits, local government agencies or tourism associations. I have not used SignalHire or UpWork. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 (courtesy ping to @Netherzone) Greg, you said you use LinkedIn to advertise. Pursuant to WP:UPE, which requires that You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions. If you advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing work via an account on any external website, you must provide links on your user-page to all such accounts., please provide the link to the LinkedIn ad Graywalls (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Added to user page - Greg's Linkedin. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

General Question

In general, do you already have what you want to say in hand and look for sources to go around it or do you try to write around what you find in sources? Just curious because of so many gaps and blatant discrepancies we're finding. Graywalls (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I usually have a topic in mind and find primary and seconday sources to back it up. Then, I write an article based on the citations using the biography or building, etc. template/infobox. From our discussion above, I realize I need to do better in terms of what I say and what the source says so there is no discrepancies. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, if things are not in sources cited, where are all the fluff coming from? Graywalls (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize that the "fluff" is coming from me. I will make a conscious effort not tp do it again! All text must match proper source citations. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The fluff I mean is detailed claims of facts at times that do not exist in sources. So, are you writing based on personal account and trying to cobble sources around it or what? Graywalls (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

What I understand is that editors sometimes add "fluff" to help show-off what they mean, with adjatives and embellishments. Obviously, that is not what we want in our encyclopedia. We want streight facts and information supported by reliable sources. So, I am not writing on my personal account and cobble sources around it, but try to make a statement based on the source. In some cases I fail to do this. I am human, and at this time another editor has actually gone through an article to review it. And as you know, when someone else reads your work, they are going to find errors and things that don't make sense to them. I appreciate the efforts you are taking and I am learnig from it. The articles are better because of the peer review. In the future, as my articles go through the review process, it will hopefully catch some of the things you are bringing up. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Carmel Valley Historical Society for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carmel Valley Historical Society 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/Carmel Valley Historical Society 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) 19:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Highlands Inn, Carmel Highlands has been accepted

Highlands Inn, Carmel Highlands, 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 20% 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!

Qcne (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I just want to check, as I have just read some of the above discussions about paid editing and COI, and now am concerned I approved this article without seeing the full context of the user. The article does read well to me, and the sources check out, but I would like a second opinion? Pinging some involved editors: @Netherzone, @Melcous, @Drmies, @Graywalls. Qcne (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Qcne. I have had a look over the article and made some fairly extensive cuts, due to what I would see as three types of unhelpful content: that which was promotional (e.g. "The Inn offers a selection of 48 guest rooms ..."); that which is trivial/non-notable local content (e.g, a color booklet was once proudced about it; or it celebrated its 100th birthday and someone spoke about its history); and that which is not directly related to the topic (e.g. who owned the land earlier, or who built nearby properties). If you disagree, feel free to let me know or re-insert with explanations. There is an almost walled garden of articles about builders and buildings in Carmel by the Sea created by Greg with hyper-local details and sourcing, which is the background to why I've made these edits. Thanks Melcous (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Qcne and Melcous. I believe that Greghenderson should start tagging his creations with COI tags, on the talk page. Melcous, if you want to drop a COI tag on the article itself, be my guest. That walled garden, let's look into that. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing

Greg, as an Afd nominator, it has come to my attention on User_talk:Grand'mere_Eugene#Talk:Carmel_Valley_Historical_Society you're using non-neutral language inviting others to oppose the deletion of the article in the section above even after you were awared such is considered WP:CANVASSING. Keep in mind inviting people outside of Wikipedia encouraging them to vote KEEP also counts as CANVASSING. Graywalls (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. Didn't mean to do any harm. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The comment you have left here infers otherwise. Graywalls (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not know the concept of canvassing at the time. Now I do. My intention was only to save the article that I feels has merit. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I am referring to the follow-up comment you left after you were told about canvassing since you appear to refuse to get the point. Graywalls (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The editor was refering to {{tq|The {{Please see}} and it was my followup to this discussion and an attempt to follow his instructions. It was not a matter of refusing to get the point, but a simple matter of not understanding the rules. What I am finding out, after editing for Wikipedia since 2007, that it has very specific rules about COI, notability requirements, puffery, and having reliable, secondary, and independent sources. I apologize and understand the point you are trying to make. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Greg, how can you say that you are just now finding out about COI rules? Have you forgotten about this extended discussion of your COI editing from 2020? [[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Greghenderson2006]]] There are many others as well, for example this from 2013 [1]. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Greg, canvassing is not permitted, please stop trying to game the system. You have been an editor over ten years, have been previously been warned about canvassing, so please do not pretend that you didn't know about this behavioral guideline. You have canvassed several editors today to "keep" and "not delete" this article. [2], [3],[4]. This is disruptive behavior that manipulates the discussion process and consensus decision making. Additionally, stealth canvassing is not permitted. Netherzone (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Another question

Another question: Do you have a COI, paid or unpaid with Wynkoop Architecture firm of Carmel, CA? Netherzone (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I am just interested in the historical buildings and people of Monterey County, California. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason I asked is that there seems to be a correlation between what Wynkoop Architecture posts on their social media and specific articles you create on houses in relation to Wynkoop's big rennovation projects preparing to put luxury home up for sale. For example the $29-million dollar Butterfly House that just sold in July; the Seaburst House that was just listed for $14-million. Both of these articles are written in very promotional tones like a high end real estate advert. I don't have time to look for others, but it seems coincidental that these promotional articles would be created prior to these large sales. And the article includes a link to a real estate sale ad/listing for this very house: [5]. Netherzone (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the articles are written as a collection of historic homes in Carmel Point that I am interested in. There was no intent on real estate links other than the links containing information about the house. Perhaps fewer citations would benifit me. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Netherzone:, the sourcing fail in these new Greg articles are just staggering. User generated contents like voicemap.me, and blogs. Yes, blogs. Graywalls (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the guidelines on reliable sources provided in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I will make sure to refrain from using such sources in my future contributions. I acknowledge that many of these articles were written prior to the latest discussions on conflicts of interest. I must admit that it can be alluring to include these sources since they provide valuable information such as census data, death records, and date-of-birth details, among others. The list of these sources is quite extensive. It's worth noting that there are exceptions to this list as well. For example, "Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia." Greg Henderson (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)