Talk:Peter Exley

Neutrality question
Although I created the page for Peter Exley, I am only one of several scholars who worked on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabinet of Art and Medicine (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think neutrality is a concern; the only other major contributor to both this page and that of Sharon Exley is ; the name suggests WP:COI, as does the fact that it's a WP:SPA, or single purpose account. Your edit histories also suggest a closely coordinated editing relationship. None of that is a violation of guidelines per se, but the most recent additions of passages on an apparently non notable publication, with an image of the book's cover used in both biographies, heightens concerns. It would be better if you hadn't restored the material in question, or removed the COI tag. I'm loath to edit war, and prefer to take this to an appropriate noticeboard for further review. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I too am loathe to squabble and would just as soon not contribute to Wikipedia. My expertise is in early medical photography and I have made many contributions of benefit to other scholars.  I contend that my contribution of the Peter Exley page will also be of service to scholars.  Not just architects who respect Exley's work, but anyone who visits the Ronald McDonald House in Oak Lawn and who desires to learn more about the origin, design and execution of the facility, will benefit by this information.  Project managers will also benefit by information on Exley's projects including his installations at the Exploration Station, Dupage Children's Museum, Lincoln Park Zoo. There is no question of Exley's Wikipedia relevance. If there is a question of the credentials of the bibliographer presenting this information, that is a tough hurdle for Wikipedia(ns) to manage. These talk pages were put in place to hash out problems of relevance and authenticity.  For my part, I enjoy sharing my knowledge with other scholars and have received ten fold for what I have given.Cabinet of Art and Medicine (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Which doesn't seem to address the issue at hand. Neither your good intentions nor credentials are being called into question. As noted, I am concerned with several issues, about which I've begun a discussion here . 99.12.243.171 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)