User talk:Greghenderson2006

Sorry, but the consensus is very clear there, so I've closed the request as "declined". Please read my closing statement there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you very clearly how to achieve this goal.

Do not use AI to generate text.

This "One of my goals" is not conducive to earning the trust of the community. Just don't do it. Not now, not ever; never.

I feel a serious dose of "Good Grief" coming on. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suitably vague. Seasider53 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to be less vague. I get the issues that come with using AI to create Wikipedia articles, like the risk of spreading inaccurate or false information. I think it can be helpful in research and possibly writing, but should not be used to replace human thinking. So the goal is to provide reliable sources, no close paraphrasing, and no COI. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the original version of this comment through GPTZero, and it showed 98% positive. – bradv 01:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did too and was suprised, so I wrote again to make sure it passed. AI is a funny thing, even humans can write AI generated text! Greg Henderson (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you might have just sealed your fate there. Seasider53 (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is just one thing too many. My good faith has been stretched beyond its elastic limit. Let me be clear:

• you have been caught using AI to generate text at Talk:Pomeroy Green where you have said "One of my goals is to not use AI to generate text."
• when I tell you very gently that this goal is easy to achieve by not using it, you replied "Yes, I agree with you." which is dissembling. Making no reply except an apology for the behaviour would have been wholly appropriate
• You then used AI to generate the reply here "I will try to be less vague. I get the issues that come with using AI to create Wikipedia articles, like the risk of spreading inaccurate or false information. I think it can be helpful in research and possibly writing, but should not be used to replace human thinking. So the goal is to provide reliable sources, no close paraphrasing, and no COI.:
• when caught by GPTZero with a 98% match, one I have also verified, you said "Yes, I did too and was suprised, so I wrote again to make sure it passed. AI is a funny thing, even humans can write AI generated text!" which is patently difficult to believe, since the probability is that you would have checked it again.

Now we need a very good reason indeed not to take this further to ANI with a proposal to extend your block to a total one. Your behaviour appears to me to be non collegial at best. Please think hard. It seems to me that this is now your final chance. There is no rush. Unless, of course, someone else takes action at once. Remember, many people have been prepared to act positively towards you despite your editing track record. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using AI to generate text for articles. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that to be too late.

Forced apologies are no apology.

I have been supportive of you previously, willing to guide you. That was before this self created AI farrago. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this mess. Thanks for previous support. It will take some time to recover from this. However, my apology is most sincere. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This mess" does not appear to me the accept that you created and caused it. What concerns me is that editors seem to need to guide your understanding, both of correct editing, and of the correct understanding of acceptable behaviours.

You need to take responsibility for your actions.

At present you seem unable or unwilling to do so. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to do this! I am dedicated to helping to expand the scope of Wikipedia. I appreciate your past support. Please allow me to show you that I am a positive person that can contribute and follow the rules. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do it by not being a total prat. The AI business is an example of being one. The ice is very thin. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006:, editors have asked you about your use of ChatGPT/AI in creating responses. You've not been forth coming and evasive in response. If you're adding a comment and they're not written by you, then you are expected to be transparent about that. Graywalls (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out, GPTZero can be incredibly inaccurate and really shouldn't be used to make decisions on if text is AI-generated or not.

I can usually tell when text is AI-generated as it does have a very specific style, cadence, and use of words - ironically the comment from @Greghenderson2006 above has a couple of those in the text so GPTZero may indeed be right in that case.

@Greghenderson2006 I missed the ANI discussion. I've accepted a couple of your articles via AfC in the past. You can write good articles. Just, please, no more COI editing. No more AI editing. It's not worth it. Qcne (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thank you for accepting some of my AfC articles. I try to my best and enjoy writing these articles. I will not use COI and AI editing. You are right, it is not worth it! Greg Henderson (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne:, that's true. However a black and white difference in the result after submitting writing samples from suspected user's most recent contributions and doing the same with their writing samples from pre-ChatGPT era would satisfy WP:DUCK.

For example, Thank you for your message. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention... as well as Thanks for your comments. Yes, I am interested in Californian history... at User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_10#Shipbuilder_articles from 2021 comes up as 3% chance of AI.

However, I appreciate your feedback and concerns regarding the quality of my edits. For me quaility is important... from March 22, 2024 at User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_20 comes as 100% AI coinciding in time with skyrocketing ChatGPT popularity. Graywalls (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overly detailed[edit]

Your article tends to be unusually name drop heavy. It will take too much time to go hunt down specific diffs and discussions, but in prior articles somewhere, there's been a discussion with multiple editors about the extent of details about each school one passed through and teachers they've had. Yet, here we're at it again. Graywalls (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Coyote station. Thanks! Netherzone (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Coyote station 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) 00:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, your article Sargent Station has a section, "Decline and legacy" that is not backed up by the source (#14 Patrick McGreevy. "Sargent's Station" (PDF). core.ac.uk). The source mentions nothing about the Thomas Brother's Maps, nor the 1950s, nor the 21st Century (How could it when the source was written in the 1970s?) Netherzone (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are referring to the article Sargent, California. I have reduced the text down to what can be supported by the source provided. Greg, where did this text come from? I don't believe you wrote it all yourself. – bradv 13:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It came from Local Landscape Descriptions. Thanks for editing the Sargent, California article. I appreciate your comments. I actually took the time to visit this ghost town and take pictures of what is left of it. The text was written based on this article. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Sargent, California has a section "Decline and legacy." The source, here referes to the text in the article: "Sargent stands as a ghost town, its silence a stark contrast to the vibrancy of its pastabandoned." This text, not the citation and been removed by user:Bradv. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, sorry my mistake, it was Sargent, California. A couple (non-rhetorical) questions I'd appreciate you answering:

• Where did you find the text that was removed from Sargent, California; was it your own original research, or was this an AI produced paragraph and the AI program attributed it to that 1979 source? It did not make sense at all to me, esp. the reference to the 21st C. from a 1970s source and the poetic euphemisms like leading to a mass exodus, and its silence a stark contrast to the vibrancy of its past and this weathered by time, serve as monuments to the town's former glory. It's perplexing, and the AfC reviewer apparently did not catch the sourcing problem (no fault to the reviewer).

Here is the text if that helps you remember: The town of Sargent was featured on Thomas Brothers maps from the 1950s but is absent from the company's maps in the 21st century. As transportation technology evolved and new routes were established, towns like Sargent were bypassed. The decrease in rail traffic meant fewer opportunities for trade and commerce. Gradually, the town's economic base eroded, leading to a mass exodus of its inhabitants. Now, Sargent stands as a ghost town, its silence a stark contrast to the vibrancy of its past. The remaining structures, weathered by time, serve as monuments to the town's former glory. A beet-loading tower sitting beside the abandoned spur at Sargent is one of the few remaining reminders.

• QuillBot attributes it 100% to AI generated text, Scribbr detects 100%, WriterAI detects 90% AI, GPTZero 89% AI. I'm not sure about WP's guidelines or policies on AI-generated articles, but in academia (where I've worked for over 30 years) it is considered it plagiarism. Are you using AI so that you can continue to crank out articles and drafts so frequently? If so, that is not the right way to help build an encyclopedia. Please answer the AI question truthfully.

Many of your drafts/articles have problems that the Articles for Creation reviewers, new page patrollers (and even edit request fulfillers) are not catching - especially if they are newer reviewers or are working too quickly. It's very time consuming to have to re-review so many of your articles when I'd much rather be working on things actually of interest to me. Several of us have had this discussion before, you need to respect the fact that volunteer time is the most valuable resource here, and you have been asked many, many times to respect that resource and not think of us as your assistants/employees. It became such a drain on my editing time, I stopped looking over your articles for a few months, but now realize that the problems persist.

• Why is Sargent Station a stand alone article and not part of the Sargent, California article? I don't believe the station is a NRHP historical landmark. I think it would serve the readership better if the two were merged into one, or a redirect from the station article to the town article was created and some of the content was merged.

Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of questions here.

• First, the statement in green (above) is from these sources: here and here.
• In terms of QuillBot, I used a different tool to check that I was not using AI to generate the text. It is ai content detector and it gave me the result: "Passes as Human!" I apologize for trying to write text using an AI tool. I understand it can lead to misinformation and wrong facts. I have a made promise to myself not to use it in the future. It is one of the things you learn in Wikipedia not to do.
• The reason Sargent Station is a stand alone article is because it is part of a series of train stations that sprung up along the coast from San Francisco to Los Angeles in the 19th century. There are other articles on train stations like Del Monte station, etc. I am not a supporter of merging the articles as they serve two different purposes. Clarity comes in the standalone articles.

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just started reading this, and I was wondering why, if you are doing the writing yourself, that you even had to use used a different tool to check that I was not using AI to generate the text? Netherzone (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Kiddle, an Encyclopedia for Kids a reliable source, and why isn't it listed among the references? And Environmental Logistics is the website of a commercial company that is promoting its services, that does not seem like a reliable source either. I don't see that listed among the references either.

Newspapers, magazines, academic journals and books and the like are the main types of references needed for writing a rigorous encyclopedia article, IMO. Please re-review WP:RS. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not include these two sources because they did not seem to be reliable. In the past I've used AI to help with garmmar spelling, and paraphrasing, but realize this can be more of a problem than its worth. I tend to stick to newspapers, magazines, academic journals and books and will review the WP:RS article. Thanks! Greg Henderson (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, Greg, you used the sources for content, therefore they should have been cited. Your embarrassment over the fact that you knew they were unreliable but used them anyways for content building is an obfuscation of sorts. That is not the way things work around here. You've been an editor since 2006 and should know better by now. I feel like you keep trying to find ways to game the system. Netherzone (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to game the system. I felt the content was supported by the two sources I cited. I realize now that it wasn't the case. The article has 14 citations. The section you are talking about has been removed. Going forward, I will make sure all of the text is covered by reliable citations. Thanks for your attention to this. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward, I will make sure all of the text is covered by reliable citations. IIRC, this is exactly what you said after you were unblocked previously. You also agreed to go back over articles you had previously created and make sure all such errors were fixed. Have you been doing this? At all? It seems you just keep creating more and more new drafts with the same problems, and have left going back over your previous mistakes to other (volunteer) editors. It is extremely tiresome, as is hearing you repeat the same platitudes every time you get caught out. Personally, I think the best possible thing you could do is stop creating any new drafts, and spend all your time on wikipedia going back over articles you have previously created, checking them carefully for these kinds of errors, and then making edit requests to have them fixed. That is the kind of thing that would show you are serious about what you keep saying. Actions speak much louder than words. Melcous (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006:, what about explanation to the edit summary I've left in the re-work I've done here? Which reliable source directly supports a claim as extraordinary as "international recognition"? You didn't defend and didn't provide explanation either. Basically, you keep sending out square pegs with corners just rounded enough and drop it and hope that it can be crammed into round holes without too much hesitance. I suspect WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS had occurred, an area in which you've been corrected more times than I can remember. Courtesy notice to @Melcous: Graywalls (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am willing to go back and clean up past articles. In terms of the explanation of using the text: "Jon Konigshofer gain international recognition as a desginer of homes." It came from this obituary. So it is not orginal research, it is there in black and white! Please stay positive. You are trying to teach and direct me, which I greatly appreciated, but everytime I see an email from you I feel it is going to be something negative. Let stay a little more positive in our direction. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An obituary is not a reliable source, especially not for an extraordinary (and easily provable) claim such as this. The machine you used to write the article wouldn't be expected to know that, but you should. – bradv 14:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brad for your comments. I never heard that an obiturary is not a reliable source. According to Primary source "Examples in which a source can be both primary and secondary include an obituary." Here is the source: "an obituary can be both a primary an a secondary source." There is no machine involved here. The article uses real text and real citations to try to bring together a biography. Let's stay positive. We all want the same outcome. Reliable sources and great articles! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a paid obituary, and therefore lacks editorial oversight. See WP:NOBITS and WP:SPS. As for why I think there is machine-written text in that article, compare this text:

Konigshofer built a modern circular one-story house for producer Robert Buckner around 1947 in Pebble Beach, California. Its design included eaves for shading and a concrete patio that wrapped around much of the structure. The house includes a studio away from the house on a hillside. It includes single-story redwood siding and plate glass windows.[8] This residence gained attention when it appeared in an advertisement for Kimsul Blanket Insulation, manufactured by the Kimberly-Clark. In a published letter within the advertisement, Konigshofer expressed his aim to not only meet the client's desires but also to demonstrate that cost-effective homes could be swiftly constructed while maintaining an appealing design.

with the source:

The round, wood-sided Buckner House dated c. 1947; a one-story residence, it featured redwood siding and large plate glass windows. The residence was shaded by broad, overhanging eaves, and featured an expansive concrete patio that encircled much of the dwelling. It was featured in an advertisement for Kimsul Blanket Insulation, produced by the Kimberly-Clark Corporation, based in Neenah, WI. According to a letter published in this advertisement, the designer, Jon Konigshofer wrote: "In addition to fulfilling the wishes of our client, we wanted to prove that low-cost homes can be erected in a short period of time and still be attractively designed.

That looks to me like you used AI to reword the source, right down to paraphrasing the quote from the subject himself. – bradv 15:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's Copyvio Detector has detected that Violation Unlikely coming in at 9.1%. Commons words like "Sand and Sea complex" "Domestic Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Region" and " San Francisco Museum of Modern Art" are being picked up as similiar to the source.

The words you quote as "machine-written" do not match. I am doing my best not to close paraphrase. All I can do is write based on the source to avoid WP:OR.

I will look at the article again and clean up any close paraphrasing. Thanks for your concern, I appreciate it! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Past articles? That problem I've identified is in one of your freshly brewed drafts. Graywalls (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, just for your interest, if you run snippets from articles created by Greg prior to the general proliferation of ChatGPT like services through GPTZero, they come up well under 10%. Graywalls (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls, I don't know what that means, please elaborate. It is not clear to me if you are saying that before the AI GPT/LLM boom, there were fewer copyvios, but after the boom there are more copyvios? Netherzone (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, I was saying that when you feed chunks of text into GPTZero from articles created by Greg prior to AI/LLM boom, GPTZero returns <10%. If it was Greg's writing style that was being seen as AI generated, I would think that his articles created before ChatGPT became popular would score similarly as those he's written after ChatGPT became common place. In other words, it doesn't appear to be triggered by his personal writing style. Graywalls (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, Not including these recent discussions, you have previously been warned 10 times about copyright, copyvio and close paraphrasing. Below are just the ones on your user talk pages, and don’t include the warnings/concerns on article and draft talk pages. Over the years you keep apologizing and saying you won’t do it again, but the behavior keeps being repeated endlessly. Now in the time of AI, you have found another work around, which is using AI or Earwigs to slightly tweak text you find on the internet so that it evades copyvio detection.

It is astonishing that your block is not broader than article space given that you have not learned from previous blocks. The amount of good faith and mentoring you have received from the community is beyond generous. Yet you continue to violate copyright guidance; expect other editors to find sources for you and answer your endless stream of edit requests many of which have errors in them including today[1]; keep making promises that you do not keep; continue to add citations that are inadequate, false or misleading; use unreliable sources then falsely cite them to a reliable source; continue to repeat the same arguments and excuses and apologies without convincing others; continue to crank-out new drafts before cleaning up all of your older problematic articles; have engaged in multiple instances of COI editing going back to your very first days on WP and you have engaged in undisclosed paid editing.

The amount of time other editors have to spend with your drafts (I guess that’s what you call “peer review”) is exorbitant. Honestly, I do not know if you have the competence to edit WP WP:CIR or if this is tendentious editing framed in “friendly, good-natured” excuses and hollow rationales and strategies for gaming the system many of which were written by an AI program.

List of ten warnings for CopyVio from user talk (there are others distributed across articles and drafts):

13:30, 8 September 2017 – Warned by Dianna [2]

21:50, 23 April 2020 – Warned by Sphilbrick [3]

18:07, 13 July 2020 – Warned by Netherzone [4]

03:47, 31 December 2023 – Warned by Graywalls [5]

18:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) – Warned by Star Mississippi [6]

05:35, 24 February 2024 – Warned by Netherzone [7]

05:18, 24 February 2024 – Warned by Netherzone [8]

07:21, 24 February 2024 – Warned by The Wordsmith [9]

07:20, 24 February 2024 – Warned by The Wordsmith [10]

09:24, 10 March 2024 – Warned by Graywalls [11]

Additionally and aside from the multiple warnings you have receive for COI and UPE, there is this warning about copying from your paying client’s submitted content and misrepresenting that. While this isn’t copyvio per se, it’s related.

21:35, 21 August 2023 – Warned by Melcous re: copy/pasting from UPE clients [12]

This has been going on for years and years and does not seem like it going to stop. It may be time to find another "hobby". Netherzone (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st CopyVio issues bring up is on William Helm, which I wrote. The issue was resolved by adding a commons license on my webpage. It wasn't a copyright issue because I was the author of both articles. The William Helm article was nominated for deletion and the discussion was to keep. The article has no tags or issues as of 6/14/24.
• The Carmel Art Association was nominated for deletion on 11 July 2020. The result of the discussion was no consensus. You, Netherzone, were one of the ones voted to delete it. However, it is an article I am proud to have written and it has no tags or issues as of 6/14/24.
• Do I need to go on. Let be more positive about this. I've written many articles and although they all might not be perfect, they would done on a volunteer basis to help the Wikipedia community. I check each article for any CopyVio issues.
• To ask me to get another hobby sound mean at best. I think I've pointed out this type of language with you before. Stay positive, its a beautiful day. We are all trying to make this work and do the best job at what we write!
• I am commited to no CopyVio and no COI.

Greg Henderson (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident from your response that you are missing the point. WP:IDHT Netherzone (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I affirm what Netherzone has said, there are serious concerns here about both WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. Greg, you keep talking about how you are a volunteer and how much you are helping the wikipedia community. I have yet to see you acknowledge that you are creating hours of tedious work for other volunteer editors, which is a hindrance not a help. Just because an article has no tags on it does not mean issues don't exist. I have just spot-checked the two articles you mentioned above and within a few seconds of looking found two issues in the opening sentence of William Helm, as well as an unsourced direct quote in Carmel Art Association. You said in reply to my previous post I am willing to go back and clean up past articles. Please read what I wrote more carefully. I did not ask for another empty promise, I asked Have you been doing this? At all? There is much, much, more work to be done cleaning up the errors in articles you have created. You only seem to do this when another editor points them out. I am one of a number of volunteers telling you to take the initiative to do that, and to stop creating more work for the rest of us. Melcous (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think TBAN is in order. Anything California and things associated with California people, broadly construed. Anything Henderson family tree related, and client engaged editing of any kind, disclosed or not. Graywalls (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think that goes far enough – between CIR issues, misrepresenting sources for years, deliberately using poor sourcing and knowingly masking them with fake reliable sources, years of COI editing, undisclosed paid editing, use of AI in articles and talk pages, submitting inaccurate edit requests, failure to clean up his errors, scores copyright violations and close paraphrasing, gaming the system, not changing behavior after multiple blocks, empty promises and hollow AI-written "apologies", bludgeoning discussions and excessively wasting editor's time, I don't think he should be allowed to come anywhere near article or draft space at all. I have zero good faith left I am sorry to say; he is a net negative for the community. Netherzone (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone, Graywalls, and Melcous: At what point does this overall package of behaviors merit a return trip to WP:ANI for stronger sanctions? Some of the evidence compiled above, especially by Netherzone, is starting to look real ANI-worthy. Also pinging @Star Mississippi: Left guide (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide: it's a fair question. I personally feel too involved to be the one to take this to ANI, but I don't see how this is going to end any other way. Unfortunately I don't think Greg is ever going to voluntarily step away from editing or change his behaviour. Melcous (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's more than sufficient merit given the problematic content and continued obfuscating and broken agreements, but don't have the on wiki availability to start an ANI thread right now. Star Mississippi 13:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide, I've made my thoughts on the matter quite clear above. Along with several other editors over the years, I have tried to mentor and advise Greg to change his editing habits and follow the guidelines and policies of this collaborative community. I'm sorry can't open an ANI due to a real life personal matter that requires more attention and energy but would participate should you or someone else choose to do so. Netherzone (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped by after declining Draft:Coyote station (after 3 previous declines) for multiple verification failures and a GNG fail. A look at Bonadea's decline on June 7th shows Greg blatantly copied text from a source with minimal changes and tried to submit it to mainspace. I have no previous involvement with Greg's editing, but I am appalled at how poorly written this draft is, and it clearly shows a continuing pattern of inability to write articles within policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. Graywalls (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fairglen Additions 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/Fairglen Additions 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.

– bradv 16:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Trainsandotherthings were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

"This rail spur remained in existence until at least 1939, according to United States Geological Survey map data." is cited to a source from 1913. "The cars at the rear of both trains were completely demolished." contradicts the source which states that the trains collided head-on; what is described in the article would only be possible if the trains reversed into each other. The station is said to have closed in 1959 twice in a row. The San Jose Mercury News is the only secondary source giving significant coverage, so right now GNG is not met either, because more than one such source is required.

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:Coyote station 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.

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Clearfrienda was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Painted Cave, Galdar instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This article appears to already exist at Painted Cave, Galdar. I suggest merging information from this draft into this article.

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 (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.
• 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.

C F A 💬 17:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clearfrienda, that is an entirely different cave. However the draft should be declined or rejected because of close paraphrasing which is an ongoing issue with other drafts and articles from this user. Netherzone (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Cueva Pintada (California). Thanks! Netherzone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More close paraphrasing in this draft. Netherzone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Close paraphrasing from [13] and [14]

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 (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.
• 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) 01:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ballard-Howe House, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Waqar💬 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Trainsandotherthings was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

You haven't addressed any of the issues from the previous decline - did you really expect submitting again would work?

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:Coyote station 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.

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Ballinger House, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse C. Bowles House, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Waqar💬 15:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Arthur H. Vachell. Thanks! Zeromonk (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeromonk, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've updated Draft:Arthur H. Vachell to include two more citations that mention that Arthur and his brothers introduced polo to the West Coast. I think that this draft is worthy of WP:BASIC notability based on the secondary sources from Jennie V. Cannon and other, introducing Polo to the West Coast, for his body of artwork, and being represented at the Monterey Museum of Art. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Burnett Township, Santa Clara County, California. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Notability has not been established for this person who was simply doing his job as a trumpet player and Army documentary photographer and as a commercial photographer. As a photographer his work is not held in any notable art museums nor national galleries of art. The collections that own his work is because of the subject matter he photographed, not because his work has artistic merit and was curated into important museum collections. I can't see how they would meet NARTIST nor GNG.

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:Anton C. Heidrick 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) 02:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle S. Abbott, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bundschu, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]