User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 15

Your submission at Articles for creation: Martin Murphy House has been accepted

Martin Murphy 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

• The block is no longer ncessary because I now recognize that I was blocked for engaging in highly problematic COI editing, and I am committed to not do such actions in the future.
• I have made productive contributions during this period by creating the following articles that were reviewed and accepted: Roberto-Suñol Adobe, Wallace Goldsmith, and Martin Murphy House.
• If unblocked I will follow the Wikipedia WP:COI guidelines for editing and creating articles.
• All new article will go through the submit and review process.
• I will the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines that include: WP:NPOV WP:N WP:V.

Decline reason:

Based on the discussion below and my evaluation of your editing history, it seems like the block remains necessary at this time. You are still free to continue contributing to Wikipedia via the AfC process and COI edit requests. (Since you say that you would do this anyway if unblocked, it's hard to see what purpose lifting the block would serve). Spicy (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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

Comments by others regarding Greg's unblock request

Oppose The recurring discovery of contents not supportable by sources, ongoing sourcing issues, interaction, WP:IDHT in talk discussions since the last unblock request does not get my support for unblock. Graywalls (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, noting the comment of Graywalls above. I believe that, with care and conceivably supervision, that this editor is capable of productive work. However, their comments at the deletion discussions of their WP:Walled Garden of less than notable, less than verifiable, maritime pilots suggest to me that they are talking the talk, but not walking the walk. I would wish to see more concrete evidence that they now understand what they did wrong, and that their future path will be a correct one. Contrition to request a block's lifting also needs to be shown with evidence. Unfortunately I have seen the reverse. Frankly I think they were very lucky not to have been indeffed totally. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - It is disappointing as I think Greg is a polite user and a nice person. However, I strongly oppose this unblock for several reasons, For many years his has been problematic, and he has not learned from his past mistakes despite numerous warnings from several editors over the expanse of years. Yes, there is the ongoing COI issue, as well as the UPE problems (he is now disclosing after deceptive editing for a long time.) A team of editors are still cleaning up these articles. These need to be re-reviewed, cleaned up of promotional content, and content that does not align with the sourcing, or is sourced with poor quality references. Equally problematic is that he distorts and misrepresents what the sources say - he simply makes things up,[1] and has been doing this for many years, and continues to do so. He does not present the subjects of his article neutrally. If this had only happened a few times, it would be forgivable, but it has been going on for almost a decade! This is unacceptable behavior for an encyclopedia; and it disrupts the integrity of WP. I agree that it is surprising he has not been indeffed. Administrators, please review his talk page and talk page archives (there are also comments on numerous of his article creation talk pages to provide insight into the depth of the problems. Netherzone (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Rebuttal - I acknowledge that there have been recurring issues with the accuracy and sourcing of content. I apologize for any errors or omissions. I am taking the following steps to address the problem:

• I have resolved these issues in my latest articles created, which were reviewed by other editors
• I have added citations to support all of the factual claims in these articles
• I have asked other editors to review the article for accuracy and sourcing

I appreciate your feedback and assistance. Please let me know if I can do anything else to remove this block? Greg Henderson (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Causes for concern Draft_talk:Moreland_School_District Not only was this draft declined twice by two other editors Greenman and Robert McClenon who are not normally involved with Greg related articles, the persisting polite evasive responses are deeply concerning. This has occurred after a sufficient time has passed since your first unblock request and I don't believe the fundamental issue has been resolved. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

McClenon was simply asking: "Does the author of this draft have any sort of financial or other connection with the subject of this draft?" The answer was "I did not." Greenman said: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article?" The article was rewritten to change the tone to focus on the Moreland school as a California State Historical Landmark #489. Therefore, I complied with the Wikipedia guidelines and plan to follow these in the future. I don't think I should penalized for this. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I remain unpersuaded. You have a pattern of writing something like It provides an extensive array of programs designed to nurture the academic, social, and emotional growth of each student. that is outrageously promotional, can not be attributed to the source cited and this latest incident shows things haven't changed. Graywalls (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I took this out of the article and it has been rewritten from a neaural point of view. No one is perfect and as long as they learn from their mistakes and write articles that are accepted by their peers, I think we are on the right path. Let's stop this vendetta against me and work together to make Wikipedia the best it can be. I am willing to work with you on this. Are you willing to work with me? Greg Henderson (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 the clear message seems to me to be "In Draft: namespace" people will work with you. In main namespace? Not so much. You have to prove yourself, in my opinion you will need a decent body of draft work behind you with no weaselry in arguments.

As for vendetta, no-one particularly cares about you, Greg. You are polite, pleasant, amiable, and are starting to be collegial. What we care about is the prior work, though not all of it, and the arguments you put forward in discussions.

"Let's stop this vendetta against me and work together to make Wikipedia the best it can be." is a part of this that I find not to my taste. It's up to the admin considering this request, of course, and putting words into their mouths can annoy them. All I can say is that, were I an admin I might have considered greater sanctions than were placed upon you. Whether I would have been correct is irrelevant, because I am not privileged to the keys of the janitorial supplies cupboard. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks for your reply, it was helpful. Having a decent body of work coming out of draft space will help prove that my work is of value. My articles Moir Building and Kotani-en just passed review and were moved into article space. I enjoy helping to expand the scope of Wikipedia and hope to continue making quality contributions. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What I hope you understand is that I wish you well. I am not antagonistic towards you. I am simply protective of Wikipedia.

You will aid your potential future unblock with an alteration to the way you present yourself in discussions, coupled with an absolute avoidance of COI of any form. Where you even think others would suggest it, it is wise to step away and also to make the declaration. Absolute transparency should be your watchwords.

That decent body of work should not be rushed. you should not be a "Draft Mill" but should be an excellent, quiet, steady contributor, such that your next application is a pleasant event for all concerned, you especially. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of wisdom! Greg Henderson (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember which article it was, but in it you wrote "generously donated" when the source only said "donated". In one of the sea captain articles, sources said the captain divorced due to a proverbial feud, but this was omitted. It seems like you're amplifying positives and going beyond what's said in the sources with superlatives while using editorial judgment to suppress unflattering contents. This is something very common of users who engage in paid editing, public relations and promotional edits. Your Moreland district article is hugely problematic because you were counseled in the very recent past about not writing in that tone but it happened anyways. So, I am seeing you talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Graywalls (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I understand what you are saying and would like to work with you to improve my writing skills. In the future, I will not use superlatives or say more than what is in the actual source. The Moreland school article was rewritten to remove "formal tone". I appreciate your help and will do my very best to make my articles written from a neutral point of view, and from independent, reliable, published sources. Once I get back in good standing, I would like to help out in any way I can with other administrators and editors. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

AfD Comments appear at first to be plausible, they are certainly polite and well reasoned, but fallacious, and worded in a similar manner to paid editors defending their work. Admins considering an unblock have some hard work to do in reading all of this. I note that this concern has been ignored hitherto in the editor's reply. I expect it will be commented upon now, of course. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the article space block. First, not directly relevant to the unblock request, I am not sure whether I have seen a partial block from article space as a whole in the past, but I think that it is a sanction that should be imposed more often. It should be routinely imposed on conflict of interest editors, rather than being an unusual sanction. Second, since an example was given of promotional language, it appears that Greghenderson2006 has learned how to write like a paid editor, both when he is being paid, and when he is not being paid. The cognitive disconnect is that, although paid editors know how to write to advertise their clients, that style of writing is non-neutral and is not acceptable to the neutral volunteer editors who are the Wikipedia community. An editor who writes like a paid editor in draft space should be excluded from writing in article space. It appears that being a paid editor, even occasionally, can result in forgetting that neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia. Real volunteer editing and paid editing involve different mindsets, and Ghenderson2006 appears to have learned the wrong mindset. I don't know how long it will take to relearn. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gubserville, California has been accepted

Gubserville, California, 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!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Martin Murphy House sourcing

Article for Creation reviews are meant to be like customs screening, which you can't reasonably expect them to go through every nook and cranny of every single person who go through. That being said, I'm concerned with the use of https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=30171 which if you read it, is clearly user submitted contents where registered users can submit things and add thigs. Aside from promotional editing, the use of sources that are not published to WP:RS standards have been an ongoing concern with your articles, such as Ancenstry, FamilySearch and things privately published by a family member of the subject. I am also noting that you continued to use FamilySearch in new articles you created despite having been advised about the use of FS. You had to be told several times, which gives me an impression that you were knowingly blowing off sourcing concerns. After being awared of no FamilySearch, you switched to using Ancestry.com, which should have been rather obvious. If you read the "about" page there, it clearly says Anyone can add new markers to the database and update existing marker pages with new photographs, links, information and commentary. @Netherzone and Timtrent:, let me know if you feel I erred in my assessment above. Graywalls (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls I have looked at the reference.

I have noted "Credits. This page was last revised on February 7, 2023. It was originally submitted on April 27, 2010, by Syd Whittle of Mesa, Arizona. This page has been viewed 2,065 times since then and 147 times this year. Photos: 1, 2. submitted on April 27, 2010, by Syd Whittle of Mesa, Arizona. 3. submitted on August 18, 2020." which is highly suggestive of user submissions.

I have noted that anybody may add an entry: "Add a Marker"

I have not seen evidence of rigorous editorial oversight, though I do see an editorial board: https://www.hmdb.org/about.asp

I do not see evidence that, certainly at present, this source passes WP:RS; the whole tenet of the site suggests it to be a primary source. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at it, it looks like a moderated forum posting. That said, even forums could have editorial board of moderators. Graywalls (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

In another role I run a forum. It is moderated by me. It could never be considered a reliable source. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the info on using hmdb.org as an {Unreliable sources}}. Graywalls pointed this out to me on October 6, after the article went into article space. Sorry for the use of this citation. Although it has some valuable information, I understand it can't be used. I've since taken it out on my drafts and will not use it in the future. The same is true for familySearch.org, ancestry.com, and findagrave. I like the article Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Perhaps hmdb.org should be listed here. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You could make that proposal? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can do this via the Talk page. It was added here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't go in WP:RSP just yet. Did you not read, Greg?

"The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed." So, they go to RSP/N first. Graywalls (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but where is RSP/N? Do you mean WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and not on the project talk page? Greg Henderson (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. There's a button right to "start a new discussion". That noticeboard is specifically for addressing use of specific sources. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - just moved the question to the WP:RS/N noticeboard. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Also Greg, why is it that you had to be told about FamilySearch multiple times before you finally stopped using it? Graywalls (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is he forced to use FamilySearch? Seasider53 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

just fixed a typo. Graywalls (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry about using FamilySearch.org. Some of their items appear reliable, e.g. Census records, birth records, etc., However, I won't be using FamilySearch.org or Ancestry.com in the future. What is the best way to cite a census record or a birth record? Greg Henderson (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not about the source FamilySearch so much as it is you continued sneaking it in despite knowing it shouldn't be used as well as using questionable user generated contents or bloggy websites which you should know better by now to not use. When it was noticed in articles and it was tagged unreliable source within the article, you removed it while not proactively addressing it in other articles you created. Care to explain why you continued using it after being aware it shouldn't be used? Graywalls (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I should not have used them. Perhaps these articles were written a year or two ago. I did use FamilySearch.org because of the citations for Census and birth dates. Now that I am trying to improve my writing and use reliable sources, I plan not to use them again. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Still rather evasive. The response reasonably explains why you used it initially, but does not explain why you continued to create new articles using it after you were awared it is unreliable. You didn't ask questions seeking to clarify it but you just snuck them back in with new articles back when you had auto-patrol. Graywalls (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

At the time I felt it was the way to make an accurate citation for a census record or other government citing that was found on familysearch.org or ancestry.com. I know realize it is best not to use these sources. I hope you understand that I would like to amend my past wrongs and move towards writing new articles and correcting past articles so that they contain reliable sources. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit requests on behalf of clients

Do you put in requests for your clients without regard to the suitability or correctness of the source knowing it will likely be rejected? Do you do this just so they can see the community said no? It's ridiculous you submitted a request using a source published in 1993 to cite something that happened in 1997 at Talk:Gary_W._Lopez#Request_Edit_G Graywalls (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The setence should read "After the acquisition of Archipelago Production, in 1993" not 1997. The request edit has been updated. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saratoga Village Library has been accepted

Saratoga Village Library, 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: You moved the article to article space only a few minutes after I submitted it for review. Thanks! Greg Henderson (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Santa Clara Campaign Treaty Site has been accepted

Santa Clara Campaign Treaty Site, 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

user generated contents, self published/personal websites, blogs

These sources seem to continue making their way into your new articles. Graywalls (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You must be refering to noehill.com, hmdb.org, and californiahistoricallandmarks.com websites that were created for California Historical Landmarks. I have since removed these citations. Sometimes it is hard to know when for example, noehill.com contains California Historical Landmark information. Thank you for pointing this out! You have been a big help. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The use of flimsy sources has been an ongoing issue with articles you create though. I'm concerned it's persisting. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Los Gatos Historic Commercial District has been accepted

Los Gatos Historic Commercial District, 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: I'm grateful for your review of the Los Gatos Historic Commercial District article. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Moreland School District has been accepted

Moreland School District, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Qcne (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Qcne: I appreciate your review of the Moreland School District article. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006:, You uploaded the logo at 2,348 × 1,076 pixels, which contains creative elements as CC-BY-SA license, attributed it to: "The Moreland School District logo, courtesy of Moreland School District (Maureen Naylor Public Information Officer)." and although you included moreland.org as the origin, there's no notation anywhere on the site about creative commons licensing. Really interesting. Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: The creative commons licensing is listed as cc-by-sa-4.0. Moreland School was the orgin and Maureen provided the permission to use it. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It says CC-BY-SA-4.0 because you tagged it as such. Anyone can upload any picture and code the license as anything technically. "provided permission to use" is not the same as they irrevocably released the image for anyone to use, modify, make derivative work etc. Graywalls (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have answered this on the Moreland School District talk page. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Live Oak Creamery has been accepted

Live Oak Creamery, 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!

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 21-Mile House has been accepted

21-Mile 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bkissin: Thank You. Can you also update the link here: California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County for the link to the Vasquez Tree and site? Greg Henderson (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Miller Red Barn has been accepted

Miller Red Barn, 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!

Bkissin (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wheeler Hospital has been accepted

Wheeler Hospital, 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!

Bkissin (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Earl and Virginia Young House has been accepted

Earl and Virginia Young 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saratoga Foothill Club has been accepted

Saratoga Foothill Club, 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!

Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Willard Griffin House and Carriage House has been accepted

Willard Griffin House and Carriage 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dan arndt (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pellier Park has been accepted

Pellier Park, 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!

Bkissin (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Malaguerra Winery has been accepted

Malaguerra Winery, 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Edwin Markham House has been accepted

Edwin Markham 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)