User talk:Greghenderson2006: Difference between revisions

Verifiablility

Greg, I have just added a "failed verification" tag to content you added to the lead of Katharine Cooke. As you surely should know by now, verifiability means that another editor should be able to look up the source you have cited to check and clearly see that the information is found in that source, and is not coming from anywhere else. In this case, that means the source needs to verify (a) that Cooke played a "major role" in the establishment of the Forest Theater, and (b) that the Forest Theater is "one of the oldest outdoor theaters" in the region. While the source it not fully available online, it is searchable, and I cannot see how it verifies either of those claims. The word "oldest" does not appear in the text at all; and the page you have cited (page 68) does not mention Cooke. (As far as I can tell, the source mentions her once, on page 71, in a list of names). Please explain. Melcous (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I will update the citation with the correct page numbers to match any updated text. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This response is misleading - you make it sound like you "updated text" and didn't update the citation at the same time. In fact, you inserted the text and the citations for it [1]. Where did you get the text from and why did you think it was ok to add those citations when they did not verify it? Melcous (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Great question. I am trying to show notability. The two citations for the text "Between 1911 to 1926, Cooke played a major role in the development of the Forest Theater, one of the oldest outdoor theaters in the Western United States., were intened to show (a) dates of her performance were between 1911 to 1926 (b) she was a producer and actor that "played leading roles in Forest Theater productions" (page 71), and (c) the Forest Theater is the "oldest outdoor theater west of the Rockies" (main page). I am sorry it was not an exact verbatim, but it is in a lead intro, and I wanted to convey the message that she played a major role in the development of the Forest Theater via her performances at period in the Theaters' early history. I am sorry if it did not follow the WP guidelines. In the future, I will avoid using this type of verbiage. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, context matters. If someone may have been considered an "important producer/director/leading lady" at a particular time frame, in a tiny community of a few hundred people at a small local theater in a country of millions, in a world of billions, well, that is not the same as having a major national or international (global) impact. Yet you continue to state such inflations in WikiVoice to make these minor people (within your local community) sound uber-important and world famous. That is promotionalism and boosterism and bias. Your exaggerations have fooled others into thinking the same through this hyperbolic puffery. An example is how some other editors immediately accept her importance by just seeing some hits on Google. Ironically, several of those hits are to your own articles in this walled garden of the Carmel Elites that you have constructed, or are name checks in hyper-local, touristic boosterism for Carmel. This is misleading. Your playing clueless about things like WP notability criteria, verifiability, guidelines/policies, and the like seems truly bizarre given that you have been editing since 2006. Not "getting it" for 18 years is quite a record. Netherzone (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Slow down. I think you are exagerating it a bit. Please look at the articles: Carmel-by-the-Sea, California and the Forest Theater. What about the List of tourist attractions in Monterey County, California, California Historical Landmarks in Monterey County or Template:Monterey Peninsula Golf. Are these part of a Walled garden?

What we are trying to do is include in an encylopedia a fair representation of a popular area that includes the Monterey Peninsula. These are real subjects of interest.

I appreciate your concern and will do my very best to only write articles that are of WP:RS, which tie the history of these cities. My articles are going through a review before they are published. I am making an honest effort to clean up my past articles. Please be patient with this process. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Who is we, Greg? When I compare the number of articles on Carmel compared to other artsy communities (with much larger populations) like Aspen, Ashville, Santa Fe/Taos, Austin, Venice Beach, etc. it's fairly obvious. I guess Carmel is the center of the universe! To my way of thinking, it is you who needs to slow down. Netherzone (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

A search on Wikipedia for Aspen results in 1,142 articles! The The Aspen Times is a local paper. There are numerious lists, e.g. List of people from Aspen, Colorado. Check out categories for Aspen: here and the category here. Looks pretty much the same as Carmel-by-the-Sea. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, who is we of which you speak? BTW, at least five editors have pointed out the Carmel walled garden. However, you don't seem to want to understand what is being communicated. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Netherzone (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Thanks for your comments. I was speaking on behalf of other article creators for Carmel or for that matter Aspen. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

In Aspen, there is none of those set of articles like Bus shelter 1332 designed by designer A and master installer B along with biography of these people who have also designed and installed bus shelters 1333, 1334 and 1335. With your articles, when you go to Bus shelter 1333 and it has duplicative contents talking about how those same people built it and they've also done the 1332 shelter on which land it was purchased from the sheep farmer's (1950-2022) wife (1955-2020) where she once had a weaving studio, which was designed by architect C and built by some local builder D whose son played with the farmer's son at some hyperlocal softball league. Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I undersand your point. There are some Aspen buildings that have issues too. See Aspen Meadows Resort with citation issues and Wheeler Opera House, which is overely detailed. I will work on tightening up my articles. Thanks! Greg Henderson (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, @Greghenderson2006. The Aspen Meadows Resort article is especially problematic. It was created by an editor with only a little over 500 total edits (so they may not have known better due to lack of experience) A quick glance at their article creations shows that others are also problematic. Netherzone (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that claim should be mentioned at all, as the statement that the Forest Theater is one of the oldest open air entertainment venues in the West is misleading and should be removed. There is a long legacy of these types of outdoor spaces in the Western US. For example to name a few, the Taos Plaza in New Mexico going back to 1803, Santa Fe Plaza going back to the 1820s, Red Rock Canyon amphitheater going back to 1906, Bayview Opera House open air theater in San Francisco going back to 1888, Cushing Memorial Amphitheater (modern name) 1913, and in the Los Angeles area open air theaters in the old historic district going back to the 18th/19th century, later the Greek Theater, Hollywood Bowl sites. The list goes on. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to remove the claim you can, or I can. I am simply trying to show that Katharine Cooke is notable because she was one of the earliest actors, directors, and producers for an outdoor theater that got a lot of attention in the West Coast newspapers. If you do a newspapers.com search on "Forest Theater" in California from 1910  –  1930, you get 894 matches! "Katharine Cooke" gets 30 matches, "Katherine Cooke" (another spelling) gets 84 matches! Judge for yourself, this lady should have a place in an encylopdia that includes child actors that played a major role in making a theater successful! Greg Henderson (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I also want to express that in general, the ongoing use of some sources whose primary purpose is to promote tourism to Carmel is questionable. Whether those sources are local news/press releases, coffee-table picture books, self-published sources, local chamber-of-commerce type announcements, ticket purchasing sites, and the like, they probably should be used with much more discretion if at all. It is questionable whether these are appropriate for an encyclopedia in the first place. Netherzone (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that such publications should not be used. However, I am in the process of cleaning up surch sources and replacing them with WP:RS from secondary and primary sources, e.g. books published by notable publishers, and Monterey County has several of them. With a population of 439K, there is certainly an audience for this type of encylopedic material. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, the fact that you these kinds of errors in citing sources continue to be made after all the discussion you have had about it is highly troubling and again raises competence concerns. And I am still yet to see a single example of you going back and cleaning up/rewriting content that is not verified by sources, rather you continue to add more/different sources without changing the content, which suggests you are not taking the care required. On this article, I am still not seeting anything in the sources you have added that says she "played a major role" - that is your interpretation/analysis and therefore original research. Nor do either of the sources seem to make a claim of "oldest" for the theater - again that appears to be your own interpretation or analysis of sources. Do you understand what WP:OR means when it says is includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources? And would you agree that this is an example of doing that? (On a side note, I also agree with @Netherzone: about the use of hyper local sources. The goal of wikipedia is to be a global encyclopedia, there are plenty of other websites for the collection of local history - I have removed one source which itself cites wikipedia as its source). Melcous (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

In the month of Jaunuary I have cleaned up 20 articles. This cleanup invovles removing unreliable sources and replacing with WP:RS sources; as well as removing the text that is not including it the new citation. I am not perfect, so there still may be some issues. I understand WP:OR and my goal is to not include orginal research. Local sources can be important and include secondary and primary citations, however, I understand the need for including global ones as well. If you look at any county level articles, they usually have a majority of local sources, e.g. National Register of Historic Places for any county. For me, following the verification process is important and I will strive to continue to only write or edit articles using these WP guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Tourism promotion is quite obvious in the choice of contents to include in an editorial decision like this The beach is open to walk-in visitors, and has public restrooms next to the parking lot which is clearly encourage visits. Graywalls (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Tourism promotion is not my attention at all and I understand you point about not promoting Tourism and would agree the sentence it not ncessary. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Melcous:, it's gotten so frequent that I've been pushing over the entire paragraph to talk page for Greg to go through EACH source and clean out non-verifiable info. However, as you'll see in Talk:Sundial Lodge, he'd still sometimes restore things back without properly verifying what's restored. It's incredibly frustrating. Graywalls (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an old article that needed cleanup. I completed several passes through it and removed unreliable citations and replaced with reliable ones. Thanks you for your comments. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

References

January 2024

Hi Greghenderson2006! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Alexander D. Henderson Jr. that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for letting me know. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And you're back at direct editing your family members again so I see. Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It was just a citation added. No text was changed. If you prefer, I can make a request edit to add a citation? Greg Henderson (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You also edited your grandpa, which in the source relevant to the edit made, identified you as the article subject's grandson. Graywalls (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I only added citations to support birth and death dates. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Here, you directly edited on your grandfather of the nature that affects what's covered. In the source near the relevant quote, it says: "Jerry read about Allen Paulson developing the hustlers in Van Nuys," said Greg Henderson, his grandson." You also made your COI declaration on your page more conservative and removed COI declaration for all those Henderson, Ford whatever related articles. Stop playing dumb. You were well aware you shouldn't be direct editing Henderson related sort of articles. Graywalls (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This was not my grandfather but a great uncle. I simply made a small edit to your addition to remove an extra space you made and complete the sentence based on the source you provided. I did not think this update needed an entire Request Edit. In terms of your other point, my COI declaration is visible under the section "COI Declarations." It includes both Hendersons and Fords: Joseph Henderson (pilot), Alexander D. Henderson (businessman), Alexander D. Henderson Jr., Girard B. Henderson, Tirey L. Ford, Byington Ford, as well as others. If you would like me to make Request Edits for minor edits or adding requested citations, or want me to disclose my COI in a different way, please let me know. I am open to working with you on any necessary tasks to demonstrate that I am not acting unaware or playing dumb. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to make you both aware, there seems to be an issue with the way the COI disclosures are showing on Greg's user page. I can see from the edit history that there are 19 COI articles listed, but the current public page is only showing 9 of these. Greg can you please look at this (It seems to be a formatting issue as the template only allows 9 numbered items - see Template:User COI) and fix it so that all your COI disclosures are publicly visible? Thank you Melcous (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Great suggestion @Melcous:! I was able to add after the ninth entry a text Free flowing text with the names of the other COI disclosures. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Great. You should probably put in the wiki-formatting (square brackets) to create the links for those additional items as they are not done automatically like the first 9 are. Melcous (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Edward G. Kuster, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Here you've added a blog which is Linda Hartong personal website https://talesfromcarmel.com/2012/02/27/i-am-invited-to-tour-the-kuster-meyer-house/ you acknowledged should not be used in another artcicle. A blogspot blog was removed and you promptly re-inserted another BLOG.

With retrieval date of Sep 22, 2016, I am wondering if you've composed things outside Wiki and are copying and pasting from your offline source. Graywalls (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Notable buildings

Greg, it seems clear from the discussion of WP:GEOFEAT at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27–29 Fountain Alley that a building that is on the National Register of Historic Places meets this presumption of notability (note: that still does not mean it is notable, but that it is presumed to be so). However, WP:GEOFEAT makes clear that this is for protected status at a national level only. You also seem to have been proceeding on the assumption that buildings on the California Register of Historical Resources are presumed to be notable. I think this is clearly incorrect, and this in these cases WP:NBUILDING applies and there must be WP:SIGCOV of these for notability to be established. I think this means all the articles created on buildings on the California register need to be looked at to see whether there is genuinely significant coverage of them - my guess is for quite a few there is not. Are you willing to take the time to look into this as part of cleaning up your previous articles? Melcous (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Melcous, yes, I am willing to do this. I will look to see if the buildings have WP:SIGCOV. The main reason I have created these articles is because they are already considered historic at the city level and are protected by city guidelines. The coverage shows, or will show, why they are historically important based on the criteria used at the state or national level. For California, the criteria for designation is here. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Just to clarify, it really doesn't matter what the California criteria is. The question is whether they meet WP:NBUILDING, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent sources. That would mean sources other than the application for designation, and beyond mere mentions elsewhere. Articles for which that coverage does not exist should probably be nominated for deletion. Melcous (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, you again introduced a personal website blog as a source to assert some building some guy in Carmel built should be a timeline of the Carmel-by-the-Sea here. Graywalls (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The citation was the wrong one. The correct citation from Linda Leigh Paul's book: Cottages by the Sea The Handmade Homes of Carmel, America's First Artist Community. It is a WP:RS book located here. It has 10 reviews on Worldcat. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, how many times has "the citation was the wrong one" happened in recent times? WP:CIR. courtesy pings to @Melcous and Netherzone:. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It was very close in terms of contents of the citation minus the URL. I updated the citation with the correct one. I should have double-checked. Been very busy with Wikipedia tasks as well as other tasks. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, I have nominated the two articles below for deletion as a starting point, as I am not seeing anything close to WP:SIGCOV for either of them. But I also have a question - in both you have written that they were "nominated and submitted" to be on the California Register of Historical Resources". Can you please explain why you have phrased it that way? Have they been accepted on that register or just nominated (or do you not have evidence either way)? Melcous (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

These are important buildings in Carmel's downtown district that have been recognized by the city as meeting the criteria set by the National Register of Historic Places. They were submitted to the National Registry to be recognized at the state level as well, which is pending further documentation. The City recognizes that the commercial properties that surround this area contain some of the most memorable and important commercial buildings in Carmel. The design character and ambience created by these buildings are an essential part of the Carmel experience. This area also has one of the highest concentrations of historic buildings in the City. The city wants to protect the historic resources and the general design context that surrounds them. There is a lot of documentation about these buildings, which can be found in secondary and primary resources. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

So you're telling me these buildings were nominated to be on a state-level historic list twenty two years ago and that nomination is "still pending further documentation"? And that you still think this meets wikipedia's notability criteria? 04:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Alexander D. Henderson (businessman) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander D. Henderson (businessman) 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/Alexander D. Henderson (businessman) 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of George Faunce Whitcomb for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Faunce Whitcomb 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/George Faunce Whitcomb 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Percy Parkes Building for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Percy Parkes Building 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/Percy Parkes Building 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) 03:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Isabel Leidig Building for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isabel Leidig Building 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/Isabel Leidig Building 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) 03:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

As a paid editor on Gary Hugh Brown, please use the Edit Request Template

Hi Greg, as a paid editor on Gary Hugh Brown you should not be directly editing the article Gary Hugh Brown in mainspace. WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE states: If you propose changes to an affected article, you can use the {{edit COI}} template. Post it on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it. That includes reverting another editor's work (in this case an uninvolved/unconnected good-faith newer editor). Please use the talk page so that other editors (without a COI) can discuss the proposed edits and decide whether or not to include them. Thanks, Netherzone (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will use COI edit request template. It was just a simple citation/text update. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It's probably best to use the Edit Request System, Greg, because there have been many instances where the sources do not match what the claims in articles are, or sources are unreliable or primary. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request is appropriate for requesting fresh changes, but to ask new uninvolved, unaware editors to make changes that are under editorial dispute is not a proper way to use edit request. Graywalls (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls - the way I worded that was awkwardly incorrect. I did not mean to say that only new uninvolved, unaware editors should make changes I meant to say that only editors without a COI should make changes (or not make changes) in response to edit requests. Hope that clears things up - I modified my statement above. Netherzone (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Seriously?

Every time you make edits like these two on articles you are being paid to edit, you are further eroding what little community trust you may still hold, haven't you learned your lesson by now? Left guide (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Got it. They were simple edits to answer a request for better sources. There are some minor changes a COI can make. However, I will make them as Request Edits going forward. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Frank Lloyd Wright, Chuck Henderson

Greg, I got around to removing YOUTUBE website here. The video is WP:SPS and the anchor is named Chuck Henderson. Is this person someone related in the realm of that Henderson Family Tree thing or just coincidentally named Henderson? Graywalls (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Similar to @GreenC's comment here, please stop asking this user to provide personal information on a public website. There is an e-mail function within Wikipedia if you have such questions. Seasider53 (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If you research Chuck Henderson and find a connection to Greg Henderson, that would also be a problem to reveal on Wikipedia. At such point you could email Greg with the information you found and ask them to deal with it appropriately (delete the content or reveal a COI). If they don't, email WP:OVERSIGHT to ask for help. -- GreenC 15:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Yes, please email me and I would be happy to answer any questions. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: You have openly used the Henderson Family Tree as a source on Wikipedia. While you're not expected to reveal the exact nature of relationship, please indicate affirmatively and negatively if you have connection to the source used. @Seasider53:, I believe this is within permissible request.Graywalls (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. I do not use Hendersonfamilytree as a source. All sources are coming from WP:RS. If I had used it in the past, it was a long time ago. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Normandy Inn has been accepted

Normandy Inn, 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) 20:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Buildings - again

Greg, I've just edited the article Carmel Weavers Studio to remove the wording that this building "is significant according to the criteria of the California Register" with the only source being the twenty-one-year-old application to be put on that register. You cannot use a primary source seeking a particular status to then claim in wikipedia's voice that it meets the criteria for that status. That is entirely circular. Do you see the problem? And if so, would you be willing to go back through every other article where you have done this and remove it? Melcous (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think you are trying to do what you think is best for Wikipedia. We can still say the building is signifcant according to criteria published by the California Register of Historical Resources and supported by DPR 523 form for the Carmel Weavers Studio filled out by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. We can collaborate this with the fact the city has placed the building on both the Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey updated on February 2019. In addition to this, there are several books (secondary resources) that document the time, place, and history of the building that help support that the fact that the building is notable as a key landmark of the city.

The city provides a framework for identifying historic resources and determining their relative significance and maintains an Inventory of Historic Resources that includes all properties that have been identified as historically significant to date: Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources Database. More info is here.

Please try to understand that we are talking about a building that is historic by its documented history, and is notable as a result of its historic, social, and architectural importance, which includes significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources. The article follows the guidelines set out by WP:NBUILDING. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you cannot say the building is signifcant according to criteria published by the California Register of Historical Resources unless that register has accepted it as such. Otherwise all you can say is that somebody else has nominated it or claimed that it is significant according to that criteria. Again I ask you, why do you think nominations from over twenty years ago that do not appear to have been accepted by the body nominated to are notable? Melcous (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

If the California Resiger has published the criteria and the city uses it judge if a building is historic, then it is significant based on this criteria. It does not mater if it has been accepted at the state level because the city has already accepted it at the city level using this criteria. Therefore it is notable in eyes of the City. The property remains on the list of historic buildings, which was updated as recently as 2019. The building is also part of a smaller group of buildings that are historic within the Carmel Historic Commerical Property District. Not sure you why you are so conerned about the article as long as it follows the WP:NBUILDING guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

So the absolute most you would be able to say in wikipedia's voice is that the city believes it meets the state's criteria for historical significance. That is not the same thing as what you have written. The reason I am concerned about the article is precisely because it does not follow the WP:NBUILDING guidelines - as noted on the talk page, there is no evidence it is on a national register (or in this case even on a state register) so there is no presumption of notability under WP:GEOFEAT, therefore there must be WP:SIGCOV. And there is not: the city's nomination (which also, is not for this specific building but for it as part of a larger group) is not a secondary source. Melcous (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Above you have noted it remains on a list of historic buildings from 2019. That is the city's list, right? If that was the criteria for notability, I could literally create 30,000+ articles on buildings in my tiny corner of the world. But I don't, and I shouldn't, because this is a global encyclopedia and the community has decided the standards of what makes something significant for its purposes, and they are higher than what is locally significant. That you cannot understand this and continue to create a huge amount of articles about your tiny corner of the world, to be honest, feels somewhat blinkered and even arrogant from a global perspective. Melcous (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not talking about the city list but the 2019 document with a smaller selection of buildings in the downtown area that are considered more notable. The document is listed here. I think the part you may not understand is that the city has spent a lot of time to document downtown buildings that follow the state criteria for historical buildings. The city has strict building and modifications codes to protect there historical value. The majority of these buildings were built in the 1910s through the 1920s and have historical and architectural value, as well as built by notable architects and builders. Greg Henderson (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That document is also from the city so it changes nothing. Lots of cities spend a lot of time documenting local history and heritage and seeking to preserve it - that's a noble enterprise. But we are talking about what makes an individual building notable for inclusion in a gloal encyclopedia with a stand alone article, using the criteria editors here have worked and agreed on. Are you seriously suggesting that every single building with local historical significance recognised by its city in the world would meet that criteria? Or do you just think there is something particularly special about your city above all others? Either way, the point is moot because WP:GEOFEAT very specifically says national registers confer a presumption of notability, not state or local. WP:SIGCOV becomes the only relevant test, and your understanding of independent, secondary sources continues to exhibit WP:IDHT that tendencies. Melcous (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not talking about WP:GEOFEAT. The building meets WP:NBUILDING guidelines with WP:SIGCOV via the secondary sources cited in the article. Perhaps your definition of SIGCOV is different than others. Based on the guidelines I have read, and other agree with me, that SIGCOV doesn't have to be volumes of text but coverage like you see in Kent Seavey's book Carmel, A History in Architecture. Greg Henderson (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you please point me precisely to where other editors have agreed that Seavey's book provides WP:SIGCOV? And if not, where you think "coverage like that" has been agreed by other editors to meet WP:SIGCOV? Melcous (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:GNG's "significant coverage" does not require a volume of words. It can also mean the quality of the words e.g. coverage which demonstrates notability. It can be a single sentence in length: "First softball league in the Western United States." is eight words of significance towards notability. For the record, this issue has been debated forever at the notability guideline page and Wikipedia talk:Notability. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The article follows the WP:NBUILDING guidelines because of its historic and architectural importance outlined by the three city documents, with WP:SIGCOV in-depth coverage cited in the article from reliable, third-party sources. Greg Henderson (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Citing volumerous PDFs

Hello, When you're citing massively lengthy PDF files that is a compilation of various documents, it is important to cite the range of pages so others checking work don't have to comb through the whole thing. Especially if the file is not text searchable. Graywalls (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add it is better not to include search results in the link (especially when the search terms are for a different location/person as has often occurred with your editing) - page numbers are the standard way of allowing other editors to verify content. Melcous (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Good points! Not sure if the document has page numbers, but wil remove search results. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If the document doesn't show page in-document, "pdf page 111" and such is a reasonable use of hidden comments in addition to marking it visibly in page as "111". Hidden comments are though, not for storing things that fail contents guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GF Whitcomb.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GF Whitcomb.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain…

…why I had to remove this material which is grossly incompatible with an encyclopedia? It was clearly written by you since it was present in this version in which you were the only editor of the page up to that point, so it sat live in mainspace for at least six months. This passage is marginally better, only because it lacks second-person voice, but it's still deeply problematic. Do you have any sort of conflict of interest with the Marcel Sedletzky article? Be completely honest. (Also pinging @Graywalls and Melcous: who did major cleanups on this article). Left guide (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Coincidentally, the Sedletsky house was listed as for sale on the market when this was written, as seen in these real estate listings: [2], [3]. Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The info is coming from the book "Stories of Old Carmel". It is a chapter on Sedletzky. I realize now it is not a reliable source because it was self published by the Carmel Residents Association. I have no COI with Sedletzky. If I were to write this today, I would (a) not use this source, (b) would not phrase the house in that way. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any COI's with the real estate industry, agents, agencies or the owner of the home? The reason for the question, in addition to the coincidental timing of the article creation, is that the wording is extremely promotional, the type one finds specifically in real estate sales listings. The other reason is that it was written during the time you were doing undisclosed paid editing. I'm not accusing you of anything, just trying to get my head wrapped around the complexity of these matters. Netherzone (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It is sometimes hard to respond to text messages and not talk to the person asking questions in person. You seem like a really nice guy. However, to answer your question, no I have no COI with the real estate industry, agents, agencies or the owner of the home. I was simply taking chapters from the book (not realizing it was unpublished material) and writing articles to describe the people and places of Carmel. My only COI is living in the area and taking pride in the history. I don't think of this as a walled garden, but rather sharing information that I feel would be important in an encylopedia. For example, several of my articles have gotten a high page viewer count, e.g. The Clinton Walker House, The Butterfly House, etc. Lately, I feel I can provide a better service by writing articles that are on the National Registery of historic homes/buildings. These are pretty straight forward and can avoid a lot of notability issues. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thank you for clarifying that, Greg. It is a good idea to focus on NRHP National Register of Historic Places. I enjoy working in that area as well. Netherzone (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up

Greghenderson2006, in this comment you stated I realize now it is not a reliable source because it was self published by the Carmel Residents Association. As a follow-up, are you willing to go through the article and remove all of its citations and attached material? Left guide (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. My goal is to go through the article and remove all of its citations and attached material. Hopefully, I can find new citations that support this material. Thank you for your concern. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you for cooperating. Left guide (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop spamming government documents

Literally every single person (aside from illegal immigrants) who has ever set foot in the United States has records like these, so they are ordinary primary sources that do absolutely nothing to demonstrate WP:DUE. To flesh out sections of prose cited to them is not encyclopedic, nor is it standard practice for biographical articles on Wikipedia. Your walled garden is the only place I have seen this occur on a mass scale, and your recent contributions show precisely why. Please stop. Left guide (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about? U.S Passport to show date of birth or travel info? Is not allowed? Greg Henderson (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to corroborate and confirm a date of birth or death in the infobox, then that is fine, but writing out detailed sections cited to those documents that are a who's who of family members and marriages is undue, this is not a genealogy website. And to write about family travel activities cited to those documents is even more undue. Left guide (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes you can't find any secondary source so primary sources have to suffice. I do not understand the problem with citing a primary source for birth/death dates, especially if it is coming from the U.S. Government. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Again (feels like I'm repeating my previous comment), it's fine when citing birth or death dates in the infobox. The problem lies when you write a full section of article prose cited exclusively to such documents like so. Left guide (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. What you are saying you prefer that text is supportive with secondary sources. I agree, that is ideal, but where does it say you can not build a sentence, especially "early life" with primary sources, as long as the body of the text is supportive by secondary sources? For 19th century people, that are notable, sometimes there is just no confirming information in the secondary source for a "full name" or "full date-of-birth". To omit this information seems worse than to have it supportive by a primary source. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to supply citations from primary source documents to confirm the article subject's full name and full date of birth. Left guide (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Walter Brewer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walter Brewer 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/Walter Brewer 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea

Greg, there was a clear consensus at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Parkes Building and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel Leidig Building that those buildings did not meet the notability criteria for stand alone articles and thus the articles should be merged to the list. This clearly suggests that there are other articles you have created from that list that also do not meet WP:NBUILDING and should be merged back to the list. My guess is if/when they are nominated for deletion, your default position will be to argue for each one to be kept. So in an attempt to work together to avoid that, can I please ask you to suggest here a short list of those buildings on that list that you have created articles for that you believe most clearly meet the notability criteria more than all the others? My hope would be that you can propose your top 3-5, where - after listening to what all the other editors have said about this - you are still confident that there is significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. This should provide a helpful starting point for collaboration. Of course, if you'd also like to list the top 3-5 from that list that you are willing to agree do not meet the notability criteria and should be merged, I'd be very interested to hear that too. Melcous (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Top 3-5 to Keep

• Carmel Weavers Studio, Sade's, Normandy Inn, Philip Wilson Building, Reardon Building

Top 3-5 to Merge

• Bernard Wetzel Building, Fee Building, De Yoe Building, W. C. Farley Building, Spinning Wheel Restaurant

Greg Henderson (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate you including both lists. I will have a look over the next couple of days and get back to you. Other editors are of course welcome to chime in! Melcous (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Jo Mora

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jo Mora, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop the COI editing

I already had to reprimand you above for directly editing articles on which you are being paid to edit, and now you are moving on to directly editing an article with which you have a conflict of interest in, why? All you are doing is providing more evidence that the article-space block should be re-instated. Left guide (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I forgot I was a distant relative of the guy. You are removing a lot of material from this article. Someone needs to put it back with reliable citations. I guess I'll need to revert to edit requests again. This is very time consuming. The edits I am making are coming directly from primary sources. I looking for a secondary source. Byington was a S. F. District Attorney and has a lot of info on him. Thanks for reminding me. I'll hold off for now. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I highly recommend you self-revert your latest edit on the article. Left guide (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added a edit request for these edits here: Talk:Lewis Francis Byington: Edit Request - Bio of Lewis Francis Byington Greg Henderson (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Bot archive error

Not sure if you noticed, but the bot made an error in archiving to User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 45 (which skipped dozens of numbers and also didn't show up on your archive box at the top of the page), so I went ahead and corrected the error by moving it to User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 17. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. Left guide (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this. I am wondering how it got to User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 45? Is it because I have my counter = 45? Greg Henderson (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Tantamount Theater for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tantamount Theater 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/Tantamount Theater 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.

Graywalls (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Jin Koh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jin Koh 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/Jin Koh 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.

Netherzone (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you., the section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_article-space_block_Greghenderson2006 Star Mississippi 22:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Melcous and Netherzone:, courtesy ping as the two of you discussed the idea of this at User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_12 Graywalls (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Delos Wolfe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green Springs.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed issue. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Blue Bird Tea Room

Your response at Talk:Blue_Bird_Tea_Room would be appreciated. Graywalls (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Just tagging him there is sufficient. No need to start discussions in two places. Almost all of the discussions above should be taking place on the relevant article talk pages so that future editors can see past discussions, rather than having to start over when this talk page gets archived. Seasider53 (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph W. Post House has been accepted

Joseph W. Post 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!

CoconutOctopus talk 22:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: San Jose Central Fire Station has been accepted

San Jose Central Fire Station, 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) 16:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving discussion

Greg, I don't believe it was appropriate for you to move the conversation from here to the template talk page. The issue is not with the template itself. It is with your use of the template on articles where it is tangential at best. Melcous (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Theodore Criley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Hopper.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: El Castillo de Monterey has been accepted

El Castillo de Monterey, 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) 05:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for persistent WP:COI and sourcing issues, per ANI consensus [4].

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing/copyvios on Joseph W. Post House and El Castillo de Monterey

Hello Greg, your article, Joseph W. Post House that you created last month, has a lot of close paraphrasing/copyvio material as can be seen here: [5] - Earwigs/Turnitin determines a 68.6% similarity with the NRHP Nomination Form. NRHP forms are copyrighted, see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 19#National Register of Historic Places forms, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Resources#NRHP nomination forms.

And your article El Castillo de Monterey created last week shows up as 80.8% suspected copyvio: [6], copied from this website: [[7]]. Even though the FortWiki website has a CC Share Alike License, it should not be used because FortWiki is not a reliable source. Did you give attribution some where?

Are there other articles where you copied from NHRP nomination forms or other forms like the California forms or websites? Netherzone (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of El Castillo de Monterey

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page El Castillo de Monterey has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)