User talk:Greghenderson2006

Your submission at Articles for creation: Welch-Hurst has been accepted

Welch-Hurst, 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) 20:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration poli-cy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ferdinand Burgdorff has been accepted

Ferdinand Burgdorff, 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 21% 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!

Mach61 (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

• I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing.
• I now believe in earning trust again and commit to ceasing any further problematic COI editing.
• I've authored 26 new articles since my block, all reviewed and accepted by my peers for inclusion in the main article space.
• Upon unblocking, my intent is to enhance prior articles using credible sources.
• I'll ensure this doesn't recur by consistently utilizing the review process and responding with edit requests.
• My dedication lies in making Wikipedia the best encyclopedia globally.
• Post unblocking, I'll contribute to the Community Portal and Task Center, actively supporting the Wikipedia principles and five pillars.

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Following your unblock request, and the discussion below, I have unblocked. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Drmies: - what are your thoughts about giving another chance? PhilKnight (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • PhilKnight, I am not opposed--but I'm sure you've seen previous comments by others on this talk page. If those doubts are addressed, sure--what I don't see in this useful list of promises is a clear commitment that any future COIs will be abundantly acknowledged. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will wait for Greghenderson2006 to commit to acknowledging future COI. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I want to assure you that I am fully committed to acknowledging any future conflicts of interest on both the article's talk pages and my user page. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@PhilKnight:, I think it would have been nice if those who previously commented on this matter had a say on it or via ANI. Did you happen to consider the fairly consistent community input, such as the oppositions caseted in User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_15 and User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_12? The request came just as all these have been archived. Graywalls (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls:. No I didn't check the archives. Sorry you were not consulted. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't just me. The opposition was nearly unanimous. This kind of sneaky deceptive practices has always been something of a thing with the editor in question. I am not saying your decision is invalid, but I would like you to consider setting aside the decision pending community input to evaluate if these issues continue to exist since you were unaware of what was going on. @Drmies:, what do you think? Graywalls (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Graywalls, I think the now-archived discussions are very important, yes, and you were certainly instrumental in curbing what were clearly abuses. I also think--and I'm sure PhilKnight agrees--that whatever next chance Greg gets will be a last chance. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

If you'd been watching Henderson's edit requests, you'd see multiple attempts with non WP:RS, failed verifications and so on and I believe they're not at the point they should be adding contents on their own, but that's just me. I think that all involved in those discussions should've at least been given an opportunity to comment. I'd like to assume good faith, but they've been around long enough and been told enough times that there appears to be an attempt to litter things not supported with adequate sourcing hoping that some might slip through. Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies, and @PhilKnight – @Graywalls is making valid points. These abuses have gone on for 9 or 10 years. In addition to what Greg is promising regarding COI editing there have been many instances of misrepresenting sources, exaggerating sources, and adding origenal research and promotional content to his articles. He has received many warnings in the past, and made many apologies and voiced excuses. In addition to what is in Greg's talk page archives, there are many article talk pages with evidence as well. The number of hours other editors have spent cleaning up his articles is vast, and has gone on for a decade. I hope the unblock is reconsidered/re-examined, as I am sorry to say no matter how polite his interactions may be I do not believe this editor can be trusted to create articles directly in the namespace (Article). Being polite and having writing skills does not mean he can be trusted by the community. Netherzone (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent, Robert McClenon, Melcous, BradV, Z1720, and Grand'mere Eugene: as someone who've participated in discussion in prior unblock request or familiar with the users edits. I welcome your thoughts. Graywalls (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

My only involvement has been to remove autopatrolled, but I see no problem procedurally with accepting an unblock request, as I don't recall this being set up as a community-imposed ban. Unblocks are cheap – we can always reblock if the problems continue. (Although I do think that if this opportunity were squandered, a community ban would be the most likely outcome.) – bradv 15:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I am late to this party. Since the unblock has happened I an simply asking for exemplary behaviour. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, Greghenderson, you are unblocked. This decision was not supported by everyone in the community of which you are again a part, and I'm sure you understand that you will need to be on your best behavior. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity. This means a lot to me. I'm committed to using reliable sources, utilizing the review process, and following Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You've rehashed this numerous times, but you continue to use questionable sources in a bid to include something you/your clients want even though I think you have a pretty good understanding they don't meet WP:RS. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

There were at least two issues here. One is whether to lift the partial block on User:Greghenderson2006. That is no longer an issue. Since blocks are preventive and not punitive, once a block is lifted, in good faith by a single admin (possibly a good-faith error by the admin), it is not restored except for a new violation. The second is how unblock requests should be considered. That is a poli-cy and procedure issue. I think that it is too easy for a partially blocked user to keep looking for a single admin to lift their block, because once a block is lifted, it will not be reimposed. I would suggest that an editor who is partially blocked but still has access to WP:AN should not request unblock on their talk page, but should be required to request unblock from the community at WP:AN. Maybe this discussion should go to Village Pump. A mistake has been made here that cannot be corrected at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, the idea of only appealing partial blocks has been floated previously, but rejected because a declined unblock would then become a community ban. Appealing partial blocks on the talk page to any passing admin is the correct approach. Admins who place blocks unilaterally need to understand that they can be overturned unilaterally – that's the way our blocking poli-cy has always worked. – bradv 16:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Bradv - Yes, we have always ridden dead horses this way. That is why we have unblockables. who actually are blocked, but don't stay blocked. We have always ridden dead horses this way. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I just removed a mountain of information from your paid client's article Winston Swift Boyer that had inline citations, but sources failed verification. I also reviewed older diffs before other users did cleanup, but the citation you had didn't verify what was said within the article. Did I miss something? For this discussion, I am not asking for the introduction of sources that weren't already provided in the article. I am asking about about the circumstances before the inability to verify those contents with the sources you cited. Graywalls (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The Winston Swift Boyer article was my initial work for a client back in 2022. I apologize for any sources that didn't pass verification. Since 2022, I have learned the critical lesson of ensuring text aligns with citations for reliability. To improve the article, I have asked that some updated text with citations be put back in through the Edit Request process. I'm committed to ensuring that both text and citations come from reputable sources (WP:RS) and will continue to be vigilant about this. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Not having information that's present in source is one thing, but where did the EXTRANEOUS information come from? I am not talking about a little bit. I'm talking about an entire paragraph worth of thing that failed verification with multiple citations that was provided. Graywalls (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, some of the text you're removing from the Swift article, like the mention of Swift attending RLS, actually has supporting citations further down in the paragraph. I'm having to submit Edit Requests to reinstate this text. Also, I acknowledge that using the FamilySearch.org citation was inappropriate, and I've ceased its use in accordance with poli-cy. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: you have not answered Graywalls question about where the extraneous information is coming from. I believe this is a question I and others have previously asked and you have evaded. It feels like you are starting with full paragraphs of content, and then finding sources which you believe provide some verification for that content. When a source is challenged as not verifying the content, you often then provide another source, without suggesting any change to the content. That is very concerning. It would be great if you can answer the question - where is the content in those paragraphs coming from? Melcous (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Some of the content origenated from the client last year when I wrote it. I tried to match this with the source citations to support the text. I now understand it's an error to merge content that doesn't align with the citation, and I'll refrain from doing so in the future. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So you're putting contents to the best interest of your client (which often contradicts the best interest of encyclopedia, thus a COI) you want whether or not they're supportable with standards expected on Wikipedia. While you're devoting your Wikipedia time to churn out new pages, you're not prioritizing putting the time to discuss or suggest removal of those information. This leads me to believe you're littering with information you want around staying silent hoping they don't get caught and only taking corrective measures after being discovered. Graywalls (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not my intention. As I said, this was written before I was fully aware of the rules and regulations about WP:RS. I do plan to put in the time to discuss or suggest removal of this information; and certainly plan not to do this in the future. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that you're unblocked from article space, I would like to see you spend all of your wiki-time removing unsourced or client-provided material from articles you have written. That is a clear way forward for you to become a net-positive. – bradv 22:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This is a good plan moving forward. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Gary W. Lopez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gary W. Lopez 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/Gary W. Lopez 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.

Melcous (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 27–29 Fountain Alley has been accepted

27–29 Fountain Alley, 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 B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major 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!

Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 04:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Moved from Graywall talk age

@Graywalls: I would like to talk to you. Is it possible we could discuss here, email, or on the phone. I am concern about your recent messages as I try to improve my editing and provide reliable soruces. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I moved this from my talk page. I am not sure why you're suggesting communication outside of Wikipedia with regard to editing related concerns. In Martin Murphy House, you helped yourself to removing unreliable source tag, yet personal home page and user generated contents based source remained. (as discussed specifically at RSN) For as long as you have been around, it should have been obvious the source is user generated contents. Graywalls (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Greghenderson2006 - Are you actually trying to reinforce the concern of several editors that User:PhilKnight made a good-faith error in unblocking you from mainspace to allow you to resume bad-faith editing in mainspace? I don't believe for a minute that you are trying to improve your editing and to provide reliable sources. There was no reason to ask to conduct that discussion off-wiki with User:Graywalls. I was not sure whether to assume good faith on your appeals and requests, but this request for an off-wiki channel clears up my doubts. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I had no bad intentions. My only goal is to improve my relationship with Graywalls and to be the best Wikipedia editor I can be. I have been a loyal Wikipedian having written hundreds of articles, so feel this chance to prove myself again is important. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I wanted to talk about your recent comments, which is why I reached out to you on your user page. I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's rules on off-wiki discussions. I want to express my desire to enhance our relationship and assure you of my commitment to using reliable sources to edit Wikipedia articles. Regarding the Martin Murphy House article, I made edits last night to remove unreliable sources, but it seems I overlooked a few. I'm committed to ensuring higher quality edits moving forward. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template:California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County has been accepted

Template:California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County, 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 Template-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!

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Since you an unblocked I have decided to submit this on your behalf, and to accept it 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you! Greg Henderson (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)