I have suppressed an edit you made to the above article. It is unacceptable to add a link to a home address along with a satellite shot of someone's house, unless it's something like Mar-A-Lago, which this isn't. I'm surprised that an editor of your tenure and experience did something like this. You have frightened someone. Please do not add this information again, and I'd also ask that you not edit the article at all. Thank you. Katietalk 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight I recognize that I should have made a greater effort to find a reference with solely the information I had been looking for. I did not pick the reference in question due to it having satellite imagery, nor did I intend to frighten anyone, only to make an edit in good faith of an article that had a promotional tone and a biography largely verbatim of that on the author's website, while adding referenceable, notable information in a manner comparable to the articles of other public figures. That reference aside, however, the subject-matter focused editing patterns of @Librarian9.0 and @99.42.200.213—the former writing the article as if it were a product summary page and the latter removing referenced information—demonstrate that the article has been, and likely still is, edited by one or more users with a conflict of interest.
While I won't edit the article to re-implement the information that the latter user removed, shouldn't the assumption of good faith at least not bar my ability to edit the article, so long as such edits remain in good faith? While I don't intend on restoring the removed information to the article, I think that it is important that the article retains information that can be directly cited from acceptable, reliable sources, versus simply being a rehashing of the author's self-published biography. Therefore, for information that can be directly cited from sources such as interviews or contemporary news articles about the author's works, rather than non-acceptable or unreliable sources, would it be acceptable for me to leave a comment on the article's talk page so that the veracity of said information may be discussed, and, should there be consensus on the matter, hopefully added by another user at a later date?
While my edits were made in good faith with the sole purpose of making the article more encyclopedic, I apologize for my mistake and will avoid using such a source in the future. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
