Talk:Greer Honeywill

Sources

I've tagged this article as most of the sources are not acceptable per WP:RS: too many affiliated sources. freshacconci talk to me 18:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself uses the example of cases before a court being useful in guiding content and sources. As a person familiar with court procedures, I propose that the use of primary sources in this particular matter is valid. The primary sources cited are, with one exception, not sources directly associated with the subject. I understand the value of secondary and tertiary citations, however this article is hardly contentious or controversial. 121.214.49.175 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

In relation to the other template message (close connection), you (freshacconci) have been vigilant on this site since it was created, and there now appears be no contention that the article is dispassionate, accurate and well cited. Having read all the edits and undos over several years, I propose it is time to let this article stand without caveats.121.214.49.175 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, no non Honeywill edits. Block evasion with IPs is still block evasion. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that comment has to do with the issues under discussion. I'll request dispute resolution. 121.214.49.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Freshacconci - please help me understand this additional template. It seems that immediately one issue is resolved, another template is added. As I look around Wiki, this article appears heavily cited. I don't dispute the right of an editor to add templates, but this one seems unreasonable 121.214.49.175 (talk)

I agree. There are more references here than most entries. 59.100.246.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freshacconci - OK, so how do we resolve this? I've searched the 'How To' guides across Wikipedia, but can find nothing specific to this template. None of us want a template up permanently, so how do we resolve this standoff. I know you're inclined to say "It's up to you" but that just prolongs the impasse. Can you PLEASE assist? As has been said before, there is nothing promotional or gratuitous about this sight. It's just a bunch of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.13.166 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It's because several single purpose accounts, clearly affiliated with the subject, are attempting to edit the article. I did not originally add the COI template, but editors with a conflict of interest cannot remove a conflict of interest template. I think that's pretty obvious. So far, no editor (and I have no idea if it's one person with sockpuppet accounts or more than one person) has demonstrated why they are not in conflict. Your very editing shows that you have that conflict. Step one would be to declare your conflict and assure editors that you will follow Wikipedia guidelines. Step two would be to stick with one account per person. If you're editing as an IP address, fine, but don't edit between an account and an IP address and make it look like more than one person is editing (and agreeing with each other). If the editor(s) involved would start this process, then we can discuss removing templates. And don't try to tell us there is no conflict. It's pretty obvious. Sockpuppetry is also more than likely. This is bad faith editing and you will get no sympathy engaging in these tactics. And finally, there is no timeline for responses on the talk page. Posting something here and then making changes two days later because there was no response violates the spirit of Wikipedia; everyone here is a volunteer doing this on their own time. We don't have to follow your timeline and impatience doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. freshacconci talk to me 22:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freshacconci Thank you. That is clear, logical and extremely helpful. I do have a connection with the subject - she is my wife. I agree the initial entry did not have a neutral POV - naivety & inexperience rather than malice, I believe. There ARE other people who have edited over the life of this article, some known to me. All of which sounds like a conspiracy of close connections. It has not been. I have, on several occasions, cleaned up this page to ensure it expresses only facts and a neutral POV. Greer is a significant academic and artist and, I believe, the Wikipedia ecosystem benefits by her presence - if Wikipedia is the go-to source for knowledge on a person or subject, she should be there and it should be factual, non-promotional, and embrace a neutral POV. She has had nothing to do with any of this process and would be mortified. She just happens to be my hero, and I am determined to get this page right - both for you and other volunteer editors, and her. So, only this account will communicate on this topic (beyond other editors I cannot control); I will not remove the COI template ever again; and I will, in future conform strictly with whatever boundaries are appropriate. If the COI template need to stay, so be it. I will simply sign off and leave the page to people more skilled and experienced. I apologise for my ham fisted attempts, even though they were done with the purest of motivation. Thank you again for communicating so clearly. 120.144.13.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)