Talk:A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred

Conflict of interest
Wasn't involved in the production of the subject of this article? If so, she shouldn't be editing this article and her COI should be declared on this Talk page. She should instead propose edits that she wants made to the article and let other editors make changes. 173.34.189.93 (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I did not edit one "live" edit to the article, nor did I create this article. All of my suggestions, edits and whatever tweaks I may have performed were done while the article was still in the sandbox of, not after the article was  published.  Furthermore, this is not a COI as I am retired, the value is historic, and there are no violations of COI here.  Atsme 📞📧 20:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Atsme is right. Anyway, how would this IP know that Atsme worked on the article without having something to do with it themselves? White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When you moved the article from your Sandbox, the edits moved with it but not the discussions on your TP or any knowledge that other editors were overseeing the article. The program has historic value - I'm a retired dinosaur - so there is no COI and everything in the article is referenced to RS.  Something similar was attempted before on some fish articles that included external links to PBS docs.  It resulted in an apology to me as well it should have.  I do hope we don't have to go that route again. Atsme 📞📧 20:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would being retired matter? Your involvement with the program's production doesn't go away just because you retired. You have the same COI with respect to this article that the author of a book has with respect to that book's Wikipedia article. Prudence would dictate that the connected contributor template be added to this talk page and you refrain from editing this article. 173.34.189.93 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend that you read COI because you are barking up the wrong tree. Atsme 📞📧 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I, and two other editors have edited and worked on this article besides Atsme. None of us has seen any issues with it. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 00:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This anon IP should read the guidelines on WP:OUTING. Also, there is a difference between a COI and paid editing. It is one thing to raise a COI, it is another thing to out someone, and paid editing or editing where someone will profit is totally different (and more restricted) than a COI. Also, the work done by the editor in question was done while the article was sandboxed, and reviewed by a wholly independent editor (the article creator) before going live. This is a tempest in a teapot, and the documentary is notable because of Shatner's involvement with American Saddlebreds, its PBS broadcast, and its awards. I will add the COI tag, but note again for the record that all contributions were completed BEFORE the article went live Montanabw (talk)  21:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't outing if the person lists their own name themselves; Wills and Atsme are connected in one of her own photographs on her user page (the one with Steven Tyler). It isn't immediately obvious that her additions were made before the article went live but I see that this is the case. 173.34.189.93 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope that means this issue is now settled. Montanabw (talk)  05:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This reminds me a bit of what Ca2James did some months back regarding the Racz article wherein I was falsely accused of having a COI. Odd that an IP suddenly shows up out of the blue with no edit history making irrelevant claims using hidden text in this article after  published it.  Hmmmm.  I'd say this smells a bit like harassment or even hounding.  To begin, this particular situation would be more relevant to WP:SELFCITE not COI so the COI tag is inappropriate as follows:  , I respectfully request that you reconsider the COI tag since it is not applicable.  Atsme 📞📧 00:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that the IP is skating on thin ice. (Edit under your real account name, IP 173 -- unless you are a banned editor and can't?) IMHO, you didn't have a COI on Racz,  just a strong opinion. (Which anyone who does serious content editing on WP is going to have; if we didn't care, we wouldn't be here), but it's water under the bridge.  Given that I once had to endure a COI tag on Arabian Horse Association for nothing more than being a freaking volunteer on a highly public committee for a few years, my thinking is throw 'em a bone while we are getting this article cleaned up, and then school 'em in definitions ... COI doesn't mean you are getting paid and can't edit or have input, it just means acknowledging that you admit that you have the appearance of not being able to be objective because you're real close to the issue.  A lot of people think COI=paid editing, and it does not, the two are not subject to the same set of restrictions (paid editors aren't supposed to edit directly) COI is in-between; more than having a simple advocacy, POV, or involvement but far less than getting paid to edit.  So let's show 'em how a person with direct involvement can work collaboratively with neutral wikipedia editors to do a good job on an article!   Montanabw (talk)  05:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)