User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 20

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kirk Creek Campground has been accepted

Kirk Creek Campground, 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!

GnocchiFan (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary L. Hamlin (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

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

S0091 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Greghenderson2006! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cueva Pintada (March 9)

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 comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

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

Netherzone (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Greg, this is the type of sloppy sourcing that results in a huge waste of time for other editors, who either have to go through your articles and fix them, or have to deal with endless edit requests to fix problems that were not resolved before it gets moved to article space. It's been requested of you dozens of times to go back through the articles that you have already created and fixing those, rather than continuing to churn out so many new articles. It's difficult for volunteer editors to keep up with this, therefore I again am requesting that you slow down and be more careful and double-check your work rather than expecting others to do this for you. Netherzone (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

and you are continuing to badger editors on Talk:Los Laureles Lodge. @Greghenderson2006 this is a final warning. We are all volunteers here and your edits are not a priority over any other edit request. If you continue to refuse to take the feedback on board and hassle editors, your block is going to be expanded. There is no race to create articles nor an award for more. Take the time to properly source the subjects BEFORE submitting them through AfC. Star Mississippi 02:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Greg, I wanted to give you a heads up. I don't know if you have used Legends of America or www.legendsofamerica.com as a source for any of your other articles of if it was just on this one. There is a discussion going on at the Reliable Sources Notice Board about it that may be of interest. See discussion here: WP:RSN#LegendsofAmerica.com. I'm about 99% sure it will be deprecated. Could you check to see if it was used on any of your other articles, please? If so, just put a note here and I will clean these up for you. Netherzone (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Olvida Peñas (March 9)

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 comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

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

Netherzone (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Greghenderson2006. Thank you for your work on Kirk Creek Campground. Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I have unreviewed this article, as there are errors. Please double check your work before submitting a draft.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) Netherzone (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Cueva Pintada (California) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Cueva Pintada (California). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Kirk Creek Campground, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Sourcing to privately uploaded unauthorized journal article copy hosted on drives.google.com Graywalls (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This issue is being addressed at the Talk:Kirk Creek Campground talk page. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cueva Pintada (disambiguation) has been accepted

Cueva Pintada (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 22:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Copy & Paste drafts

I have noticed you sourced a commercial website ventanainn.com in Kirk Creek Campground and I noticed a retrieval date was 2016. This source was tracked down to one of the Big Sur related articles where, all along with the retrieval date. Please do not build a draft by copying and pasting contents from other Wikipedia article without verifying the sources. You must also attribute the origin of copying and pasting. It seems rather apparent you copy and paste and do not verify what you're copying against the source. Other users have also complained about bloggy sources being used in your drafts. The AfC is not a place to feed trash, shop different reviewers and hoping it will pass and get published. Graywalls (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls, Thank you for pointing this out. It appears you saying that a citation I used is not valid. To put this into context, the citation I used is here: Three tribes of Native Americans, the Ohlone, Esselen, and Salinan, are the first known people to have inhabited the Big Sur area. The Ohlone, also known as the Costanoans, is believed to have lived in the region from San Francisco to Point Sur. The Esselen lived in the area between Point Sur south to Big Creek and inland including the upper tributaries of the Carmel River and Arroyo Seco watersheds. The Salinan lived from Big Creek south to San Carpóforo Creek.

When I used this citation, I was not aware that www.ventanainn.com was not a valid website as it was already provided by the editor who wrote the article talking about the Native American tribes in Monterey County. Your comment says that it is from a WP:BLOGS. I had no idea that it was such a website and will be more careful about using sources from other Wikipedia articles.

References

Greg Henderson (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Netherzone for the heads up! I have not used used the www.legendsofamerica.com with other articles. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

OK thank you, Greg, good to know. If you keep an on-wiki or off-wiki list of sources not to use, please make a note of it, since the blog contents cross-over with some of your interests. Netherzone (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Greg, things to learn:

• 1. Check the quality of the source before using it. It should have stood to reason that a source called "Ventana Inn" was a privately owned hotel, not a reliable source per WP:RS. It should have been obvious if you had actually clicked on the citation and read it. It clearly says: "15% Off Midweek Escapes" BOOK; 20% off Advance Purchase BOOK; 3rd Night Free BOOK; Spa Escape BOOK; etc., indicating it's a commercial hotel booking website. Yes, it is a nicely designed website, very pretty indeed, but good web design is not the same as good content or reliable sourcing.
• 2. Read a source before using it, and check what the source says against what is written/added to the article.
• 3. Do not do copy-paste edit without attribution, and make sure that you are not importing/transporting errors from another article.
• 4. The reason why this is important: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog.

It takes time, focus, analysis, attentiveness and patience to edit. Slow down, slow waaaayyyy down. You began editing in 2006, it is now 2024 and you still don't understand these very basic things. Netherzone (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mary L. Hamlin (March 13)

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

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

Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Messina Orchard, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 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!

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

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

Rhoades Ranch, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

Please do not canvass reviewers

Hi Greg, please do not canvass reviewers to your drafts like you did here at Draft talk:Miller-Melone Ranch. Your drafts are more of a priority than the other 2k waiting for review. I am not sure you get that you a skating on thin ice with your editing privileges. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Why the rush?

What other editors have been asking you repeatedly is to knock it off with your sloppy hasty poor quality edits that focuses churning out volume of articles at the expense of quality. But why the rush? Why do you feel the need to push volume rather than produce quality? Graywalls (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Moving other people's comments from article talk pages

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

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

More incorrect edit requests

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

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

Fairglen Additions, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 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!

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