This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Maritime pilots
In checking more of Greg's articles, I have marked a number of biographies of men who were maritime pilots with a notability tag. I believe these all need to be checked. Greg, can you please explain what notability criteria you believe these men meet? It seems to be that you are assuming that the fact that were a maritime pilot is in and of itself sufficient and I do not believe it is. (On a tangential note, but as a WP:Women in Red editor, this is one of things that makes the gender gap on wikipedia so frustrating - hundreds of biographies about men which basically say "he lived, he did a job ... therefore he was important"). Melcous (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
If it's even possible, it might make sense to have all Greg articles retro unaptrolled so they get de-indexed from external search and they go back into the queue for manual patrolling. Graywalls (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, let me go through those claims of notability in reverse order
* being a captain of a boat does not in itself confer notability
* being a member of an association does not in itself confer notability
* doing a job for a long period of time does not confer notability
* being listed in a wikipedia article (created by you) does not confer notability - this is circular reasoning
* being part of the "enduring historical record" is a vague claim and not particularly helpful
* so really the only question is do they meet WP:NBASIC, that is, is there significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Melcous (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Drmies:, you suggested above looking into an apparent walled garden connected to Carmel residents. Do you have any thoughts on this group of articles? Melcous (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
No, not yet, Melcous. Do you have a list or articles? If you can set something up in a subpage--it seems to me you are more knowledgeable than I am. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Melcous, I'm not going to go through all your edits right now to see what's what--Alabama is playing. A list would be great, with your notes (copied maybe from this page) for an explanation. Graywalls, anytime you think one of them doesn't pass muster, just move em back into draft space: you've been here long enough to know what you're doing and I trust you. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I’ve worked professionally with maritime pilots in the past. They’re no more notable than the 1000s of ship captains they work with. At least for the last century, it would be hard to achieve notability as a pilot except by screwing up disastrously and wrecking a ship.
@Melcous, @Drmies, @A. B., I too think this is also another walled garden; It was started with a relative of Greghenderson2006 called Joseph Henderson who was a Sandy Hook pilot. It snowballed from there. The reason why the individual pilots are listed in these articles: Sandy Hook Pilots, Sandy Hook Pilots Association, U. S. pilot boats is because Greghenderson2006 created those articles too as part of the walled garden. I also strongly agree with the point Melcous makes that if these were women we wouldn't have articles on all these people for simply doing their jobs. Netherzone (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I was speaking to modern day pilots who show up on a modern, little pilot boat and discuss the harbour and its varying currents with the ship or boat's captain and talk to tugs with a walkie talkie. It's highly skilled, remunerative job but neither the pilots or their boats are notable in my experience.
The piloting world of an older time was very different. If these articles are about those boats and pilots, I have no knowledge of them.
It is a sad day when people want to criticize 19th century Sandy Hook pilot boats and their captains. The captains, builders, and pilot boats served a valuable purpose. We should not forget their service to this county. Builders like George Steers was a was a designer of yachts best known for the famous racing yacht America. Captain Richard Brown was a 19th-century Sandy Hook pilot. He was the captain of the racing yacht America, which won the inaugural America's Cup in 1851. This is the beauty of piloting and how it can be played out in the pages of Wikipedia! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Nobody has criticized these pilots. People are questioning the pilots' articles and the pilots' notability. This has come up because they're wondering about your work in light of some of the issues identified elsewhere on this page. Perhaps these men and their boats are notable, perhaps they're not. It will take some editors some time to check this out.
We definitely want to keep any articles that meet our notability guidelines.
Greghenderson2006 Your inability to tell the difference between criticism of these people's work and their encyclopedic notability again raises questions of competence and/or listening. I would also note that your comment about their service to "this country" is telling - this is not an American encyclopedia. Does it not strike you as strange that out of all the maritine pilots in the whole world, there are a small handful considered notable enough for articles here, but you believe a whole group from one period of time in one state of one country are all notable? Similar to your articles on Carmel-by-the-Sea, the hyper-local focus suggests a misunderstanding of this project as more akin to a local or family history site than a global encyclopedia. Melcous (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can talk about competence and listening when you are so concerned about hyper-local focus. Look at other articles that are focused on local areas. The Template:Monterey County, California, has local articles about in one county. Look at Template:Carmel Valley, California, and Template:Pebble Beach all about one city. See the List of northeastern U. S. pilot boats and List of sea captains, and many more examples.
The beauty of these locally focused articles/templates/categories is that tie common threads so that someone looking in an encyclopedia can find related items. How do we learn unless we can see that, for example, Monterey County is made up of individual cities and even ghost towns! How do we learn if we can't understand how pilot boats, sea captains, shipbuilders and designers are related without this hyper focused view into the facts and information available.
The same is true for other countries. If you look at Florence Italy, there is a template for Tourism in Florence. In one city there is a local hyper focus on galleries, basilicas, churches, towns, libraries, landmarks, etc.
So Having one for US pilots boats and sea captains, for buildings in Monterey County, etc. my be locally focused, but noteworthy to someone looking in a encylopedia to get more information. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Greg, when I first saw that your account had been blocked, I hoped that it was a minor issue which could soon be resolved. However, almost every time you have posted on this page recently you have added further reasons to think that the block should not be removed. Can you really not see that Melcous was talking not about having particular pages covering topics in relation to particular areas, but about purporting to consider a global topic while in fact covering it only from a local perspective? What Melcous was saying is not at all what you have given an answer to. And that comes after your recent posts in which you exhibit a degree of failure to understand what Wikipedia's notability guidelines are about which, from an editor of almost 17 years, with over 17,000 edits, is, frankly, astonishing. JBW (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I have been an editor since March 5, 2007 and have over 17,000 edits written over 400 articles. I understand what Melcous is talking about. I appreciate his efforts. However, I believe there can be subjectivity in interpreting the concept of "notability," especially when it comes to applying it at a local level. At the local level, city council members or historians may determine, through peer reviews, that a building or individual holds significance.
Wikipedia is a encyclopedia that encompasses a wide range of subjects or on many aspects of one subject. It is not just about a "larger scale" notability, although that plays into it. My concern lies in instances where editors remove information from articles or implement redirects without giving the contributor the opportunity to provide the necessary citations from secondary source. These citations are essential to substantiate the topic's importance.
Writing an article is all about the principle that the "topic of an article must have already been the subject of publication in reliable, secondary, entirely independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail. They might be books, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals and similarly high-quality websites." This has been my motto and I try to follow this to the letter.
I am continuously learning and feel most of my articles are well thought through with both primary and seconday citations. They are usually at the local level but full of valuable facts and information that are well-suited in an encyclopedia that procliams to be a free-content online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Greg, this is just more of the same (and again sounds like you are using AI to write some of your responses). To equate local history and homeowner association pamphlets with peer-reviewed scholarly journals is frankly a little insulting; and you have been called out many times for using find a grave and people's personal websites which are clearly not what is meant by "high-quality". Notability is not designed to be subjective so that you can personally decide these things; it is a matter of agreed consensus based on articulated principles, which you keep arguing with. Unless anyone other than Greg has any objections, I am inclined to be bold and take Drmies suggestion to Graywalls above and move a number of these articles to draft so that they can be reviewed through AfC for notability. Melcous (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way @Greghenderson2006: I am not a 'he' - never good to assume, and very easy to check at the top of my user page. Melcous (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I've started a list of pilot articles to check at:
I suggest sticking to content and shelving the disputes. It's clear people are put out with each other but it's not helping to fuss with each other here. It just makes it unpleasant for all of us, not just the combatants.
Sounds like a good idea A. B. (talk·contribs). Please review the content on Maritime pilots and let me know what you think. I am all about improving what we have and keeping encyclopedic material. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
So since when did WP decide that local political players like city council members decide policy for hyper-local topics? I must have missed that conversation. Netherzone (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Greg, Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia that you want it to be. It is a manifestation of the collective efforts of its global, internationally diverse community over a period of years thru consensus. You don't get to make up your own personal set of rules, policies and guidelines just because they serve you. And to do that on the backs of unpaid volunteer editors who are spending hours upon hours cleaning up original research, exaggerations/puffery, sources that don't match content, etc. your many, many messes is not honorable or honest. Sweet talking, rationalizatons and endless promises do not fool everyone. Netherzone (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Look at your tone. I don't make up my own personal set of rules. My articles are not "mess", not " honorable or honest"? I just don't get your tone. Someone should call you out on this. My articles are well intended, well written, but not perfect. If we can improve them that is what editing is all about. Everyone has a different interpretation of the guidelines. My articles are of the subject of publication in reliable, secondary, entirely independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't know yet if editors are going to be spending lots of hours cleaning up "many, many messes". I've looked at some pilot articles and thought they were very nice with the possible exception of notability. Notability is tricky with these since some of the key refs are offline.
I will also note that, if we want to, we can probably take any one of Greg's 400+ articles and find stuff not to like. It's unlikely any of them are featured article candidates. But then again, statistically, only 1 in 1000 articles meet the featured article standard. So I hope we will have realistic standards when looking at these articles.
If we're not careful, righteous indignation will get the better of us.
{{@Greghenderson2006 and @A. B."many, many messes" with regard to Greg articles isn't entirely unfounded. The issues that have been coming up with Greg articles have been on the parts not visible on the reader facing surface. You only start to find structural components missing or uncertain if they're built to proper specifications after pulling off immaculately finished superficial cosmetic façade and walls. Aesthetics and appearance are more important for advertorial fluff writing but not for an encyclopedia. However, for an encyclopedia, structural deficiencies covered up in a wall is more problematic than something that is verifiably structurally sound but has a big cosmetic defect. Graywalls (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles O. Beebe 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.
I wrote the article on Charles O. Beebe, who stood as a notable figure in 19th-century America, renowned for his integral role as a Sandy Hook Pilot. His lineage as the scion of the esteemed Beebe family, steeped in the tradition of guiding ships through the Sandy Hook waters, underscored his prominence. Beebe further distinguished himself as a World War I veteran, where he honed his maritime skills while serving aboard the pilot boatTrenton, No. 4. His legacy remains indelibly marked by his unwavering commitment to piloting, ensuring safe navigation for countless vessels. Moreover, it is worth noting that this article stands as a model of reliability and adherence to Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines, boasting a commendable nine reputable sources, exemplifying adherence to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. In addition, there are 119,436 articles lacking sources, (see Category:Articles lacking sources), however the Beebe article has nine WP:RS and follows the WP:N guidelines. What's the reason for singling me out? Greg Henderson (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Greghenderson2006:, as originally inserted by you, it says "He was survived by his son James Dean Monroe Beebe of Long Branch."[1] but the source only mentions the son's name is James Beebe. How do you account for the routine occurrence of extraneous bits like this in articles you write that can not be directly supported by cited sources? Where did the middle names of the son come from? If it's not in the cited source, why did you put it in? Graywalls (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
If you look at the article history history before it was deleted, it provided the citation, which has the full name: [2] This is coming from a United States Census record so, should be a reliable source. Another reason not to delete the citation, but to use the "better source needed" tag. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Howard Van Pelt 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.
I just started to review Los Laureles Lodge and immediately found content that was not supported by the citation. There was no mention whatsoever of either of the persons mentioned, nor the term Rancho Los Laureles in the citation.
I'm not sure if this is just more original research which seems to be a pattern in numerous articles, sloppy sourcing (also frequent) or just plain made up out of the blue. I've removed that content, but have to get back to work now, so can't continue with the review until tonight or another day.
Courtesy pings: @Drmies, @Melcous, @Graywalls, @Timtrent (Tim, was not sure if you wanted notifications or not.) Netherzone (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
This is an important part of the article. Someone reading is going to miss this point if you delete it. The citation on page 73, 84, and 117 speak to this. If you want more citations, just let us know. This is why we have WP:CITENEED and More citations needed tags. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
(not really sure if I want notifications, but happy to join in when I can) @Netherzone Depressingly, the second reference I checked also failed validation, so I flagged it thus. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Netherzone, I don't get it. The text you removedis verified on p. 73 of that cited book, except for the "The Los Laureles Lodge got its beginnings as part of" part, to which a cn tag can be added or another source found. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps they text searched for "Los Laureles Lodge". Given the pattern of the article creator to fluff things and the enormous amount of time it takes to read the entire book, it isn't unreasonable that Netherzone said it wasn't mentioned. After all, you did say EXCEPT the "The Los Laureles Lodge got its beginnings as part of" which is where the key phrase is. Graywalls (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Graywalls. JBW (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
@Drmies, you are right that part of that content is on page 73. I examined the source too quickly trying to get some editing in before getting back to my job. Mea Culpa, and my apologies to Greg if this alarmed you, I'm sorry. Rather than going to that exact page, I had downloaded the entire PDF from the linked source and searched the PDF for certain words, for example "Rancho Los Laureles" which came up cold. See visual example. Next time I will double check my clean up work, and try not to edit when I'm so busy with work IRL. Example search term PDF for Rancho Los Laureles screen shotNetherzone (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha. I appreciate the note, and I'm sure Greghenderson does too, Netherzone. The fact remains that the continuation is what needs verification here: that the one entity becomes the other. I also checked the first cn tag placed by User:Timtrent and found the passage to be correctly flagged: the real problem, it seems to me, lies in the vague wording of the source. It's better to drop that source and based (new) statements on a better one. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I was beginning to review this new article on Highlands Inn, Carmel Highlands and yet again, the sources do not back up some of the claims in the article. The article states: During 1985, architect Will Shaw undertook a reconstruction of the Inn which earned him a Top Honor Award from the American Institute of Architects and first place in the historical renovation category of the Project Design Award presented by the American Society of Interior Designers. which is sourced to this:[1] I find nothing in the source that mentions Will Shaw, or the awards or the AIA. It has been removed from the article. Also the page numbers in the ref. are wrong for the Dietrich source, and the title of the publication is wrong. Netherzone (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I included the wrong source. Here is the correct source for Will Shaw.
During 1985, architect Will Shaw undertook a reconstruction of the Inn which earned him a Top Honor Award from the American Institute of Architects and first place in the historical renovation category of the Project Design Award presented by the American Society of Interior Designers.
I included the wrong source.. why is it that wrong source, verification failed, or not in source given are such a routine occurrence with your articles? Graywalls (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
That's just so troubling... Drmies (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Occam's Razor applies. The simplest answer is the most probable.
Please stop submitting so many edit requests, like the 4 more at Gary W. Lopez
Greg, you have been asked several times to not inundate volunteer editors with so many edit requests, please stop, as it's impossible to keep up with it all of those requests in addition to the general clean up of your articles that several of us are working on. You just added 4 additional requests at Gary W. Lopez, now there is a total of six requests. Netherzone (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Is there a limit written on Wikipedia policy about this? I understand many editors are not happy with Greg, but it now seems to be a personal vendetta (usually other editors piling on after reading another editor's comment). They are edit requests, after all. Nobody is demanding they be created. Seasider53 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@Seasider53, please feel free to answer the requests! That would be awesome, and would help with the re-reviewing and clean-up process. Netherzone (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Thought not. Seasider53 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, there's nothing lost if we just let their requests stand however weeks and months that maybe. Graywalls (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I've made edits outside of edit-request on that article. A few as a clean-up. One to address COI concerns. Details at Talk:Gary_W._Lopez#inappropriate_sources. @Greghenderson2006 and Netherzone:: Greg, if the purpose is improvement, why is the removal of this kind of unusable sources never a part of your request? Graywalls (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Final warning
And note that the only reason that this is a final warning is because I declined your edit request. [2]. Otherwise, I'd be blocking you from editing altogether right now, and I don't rule that out if you continue this behavior elsewhere. I happened back upon that discussion from that, and this is your last warning. Paid editors should not be a time sink for volunteer editors, and that especially means not to be pushy. If you are told "no", that means "move on", not "keep arguing". Don't do anything like that again, or you won't be editing anywhere. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 23:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: I understand that you are frustrated, and I apologize for my behavior. I should not have argued with you after you declined my edit request. I am committed to improving my editing skills. I will be more respectful in the future. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, you weren't so much arguing with me; I declined the edit request since I saw that there wasn't a consensus for it and didn't really intend to participate beyond that. But you just kept repeating the request over and over with several other editors. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 19:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Greg - Did you write this with ChatGPT? Graywalls (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
If this draft is resubmitted without addressing the question about conflict of interest, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.
Discuss on draft talk page or on user talk page of submitter.
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:Moreland School District 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.
Did Zearn the company influence you on this in any shape or form? I did learn through Google that one of Moreland's school, Anderson Elementary utilizes Zearn. Graywalls (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
No Zearn did not. The Moreland School District is a historical landmark, which is the reason that I am doing the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@Graywalls Zearn is also utilized at Country Lane Elementary which is another Moreland school. See link for Zearn on "Student Resources" [3]. Netherzone (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
I will review, and probably accept, this draft if it is resubmitted by a good-faith editor who does not have conflict of interest sanctions.
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:Mayfield, California 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:
"provides an extensive array of programs designed to nurture the academic, social, and emotional growth of each student" is highly promotional, and the two provided sources make no such claim.
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:Moreland School District 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. M. Beebe 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Fowler 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Netherzone was:
The General information section is written in a highly promotional tone. The demographics should be removed, since those numbers fluctuate from semester to semester. Superintendents are not necessary.
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:Moreland School District 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.
Moir Building, 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.
Kotani-en, 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.
Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@SunDawn: Your welcome! I appreciate you taking the time to review the page and moving it into the article space. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
