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. Katie^talk 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]

Hi CoolieCoolster, I created this draft, can you take a look and possibly publish it? Pumbina (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I review the draft, do you have any ties or connections to the subject matter of the article? While I'll assess the subject matter's notability, verify references, copy edit, and make any necessary formatting adjustments in either case, note that as Wikipedia's purpose is to document, not promote, notable subjects, it is important for users with a conflict of interest to disclose it on their user page. While the subject matter has an existing Portuguese article, as the Italian article was deleted five days ago after having been created by a ban evading user, the sudden request for an English Wikipedia article is quite the coincidence. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CoolieCoolster, When you fix typos/formatting using a script, please be mindful of your placement of {{copy edit}}. At the Guild of Copy Editors, we have a large and growing backlog, and we had a large spike in April compared to normal. I'm currently working through the April tags to ensure proper application of the relevant template, and I felt that some of your applications were unnecessary.

See some examples of taggings I thought were unnecessary: [1][2][3][4][5] The prose in these articles isn't necessarily amazing, but it's also not generally something I would tag as needing a copy edit. (I also want to note that I have let some of your {{copy edit}} tags stand, as their placement was warranted.)

I noticed you're no longer making these edits with JWB, but I wanted to let you know for future reference. If you disagree with any of my removals, please feel free to reverse them. Thanks for your work improving Wikipedia! Wracking ^talk! 16:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your talk page is a bit hard to read. Of course, this is your space, but I wanted to let you know. See MOS:COLORS (and the similarly named WP:COLOURS and MOS:COLOR) for help on color contrast. Wracking ^talk! 16:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although all placements of the tag were manual, used on articles I thought had poor grammar or formatting issues (with those done through JWB being manual additions made while reviewing other improvements), in future I'll limit my use of the tag to the most dire of such articles. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thank you again for all your hard work. I just wanted to reach out with a heads-up as I was working through the backlog. (also, our May drive is going on right now if you want to collect some shiny stuff ) Wracking ^talk! 03:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]