Talk:Sharon Pincott

Tone of article
This article reads like a publicity piece for the woman. It appears to have been almost entirely written by several similarly named WP:SPA editors and smacks of WP:COI. Significant cleanup is needed. Toddst1 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article is crammed full of overtly promotional language and needs dramatic editing to bring it into compliance with the neutral point of view. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Toddst1 I've been abroad and don't understand message addressed to me. I can see tho that you've made substantial deletions to the Sharon Pincott page I've inputted to in the past and you ask about conflict of interest? There isn't any conflict of interest. Why should there be? I've been assisting to keep page on specialist in a field I keep well abreast of updated with useful info. You've deleted such worthy info. You've left few references to published interviews but even deleted Forbes Africa. How many people get into Forbes magazine! There's also no mention anymore of all of the political intimidation and threats endured inside Zimbabwe which strikes me as terribly strange. Grateful please advise how I contribute to this page now although it doesn't appear conducive to updates any longer ReaderUSA (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Note this author and elephant specialist appears regularly in press. It hence has been easy to update with solidly referenced and hence verifiable additions in past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaderUSA (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Will you not even agree to allow completely valid, significant and varifiable things like Forbes Africa reference back in? Do you call that publicity rather than factually relevant? What about political intimidation and the likes of physical assault endured at hands of government officials that was in prior? ReaderUSA (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)