Talk:Gail Godwin

loveseat

The title loveseat is on a poster of a little girl and boy sitting on a loveseat, Its victorian style, dark purple velvet and early american stained wood. Dark and light blue clothes for the children. And Gail Goodwin signed it. I can not believe that is not a book of gail goodwins. I know the story good. Lets write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.5.149 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

COI editing and original research

Mr. Neufeld, you appear to be closely connected to this person and "the editor of the journals of Gail Godwin." What you had published here amounts to what we refer to original research. While we appreciate your expertise, we don't allow folks to publish their own research on wikipedia and strongly discourage folks editing in areas where they have a conflict of interest. Your essay on her contribution to literature has been removed. If you wish to contribute to this article, may I suggest you post your ideas here and let someone less involved figure out if it makes sense to add to the article? Thank you. The Dissident Aggressor 21:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Neufield. Instead of persisting in restoring the version of the article you wrote, please take some time to address these issues presented here. It would be unfortunate to have to request page protection and/or blocking you from editing. The Dissident Aggressor 19:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this a PR Article?

I just happened across this article. It doesn't seem to have much criticism of this noted hack. Indeed, the shameless copying of Daphne du Maurier's most famous opening is highlit in the article without any critical comment. What's going on? RomanSpa (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes RomanSpa, I agree. It was largely written by a WP:SPA that's a fanboy of hers. See discussion above. The Dissident Aggressor 21:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, should have read that earlier. Thanks for your quick reply. Yes, I do feel that this article seems unbalanced. Unfortunately I don't know anything about this area, so can't make a useful contribution myself, but good luck in improving it! RomanSpa (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the book report / PR / wall of unreferenced text that was largely WP:OR. I think this is much better now with still room for improvement. The Dissident Aggressor 21:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi All. I have a COI with Gail Godwin and would like to bring this page up to Good Article standards, making it more representative of some of the better works[1] from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers. I've spent some time at the local university library, which had a massive volume of source material, including newspaper clippings from the pre-internet era of the '70s and '80s in the Special Collections department. I was surprised that the page was so derelict given the volume of source material available, but I do see that much of it is difficult to access.

I am not affiliated with anyone that edited the article previously. I'll be doing research and working on some draft material offline for a while, but I wanted to start off by cleaning up some of the promotion, per WP:BLPAWARDS. CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Just checking:

• Are you a paid editor on this?
• If so, you need to declare your employer (who is paying you?), the client (presumably Gail Godwin; the employer and client might be one-and-the-same here) and your affiliations on this. I'm not sure who the affiliations are of course, but they might include the publisher, GG's agent, or any PR firm that you and the employer are both working for. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am sponsored by Gail Godwin. No, I do not have an affiliation with her publisher or a PR firm, or anything like that. CorporateM (Talk) 22:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft

Requesting an editor consider my work at Talk:Gail_Godwin/Draft as a proposed replacement for the current article. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 03:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, cherry-picking phrases like Godwin has a "pesky resistance to categorisation" from positive press by a paid editor isn't really ethical. The reception section is all positive. Where's the neutrality? How much were you paid? The Dissident Aggressor 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The disclosure mandated by the terms of use does not include how much someone was paid. I don't see why it should, either. It's not exactly outing to request personal information of this sort, but I consider it inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because it isn't required, doesn't mean it can't (or shouldn't) be asked. How you think it is inappropriate is beyond my comprehension. The Dissident Aggressor 19:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

go ahead; why we would want to wait another 15 years for a real biography, because of coi hysteria? the snark is really hilarious: deletionists can certainly delete those parts they think are too much; certainly neither they, nor anyone else has taken the time to write as well here. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Woah, I didn't realize it took this much work and this much time to improve an article where so-called COI is involved. I am about to copy and paste the paid editor's draft over the current article. It's an improvement, for sure. If anyone sees a violation of Core Content Policies I suggest you ask the paid editor to fix it. Since they're getting paid, they may as well do our volunteer work for us too. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How about instead of a wholesale cut/paste, we do incremental improvements, like is customary? The Dissident Aggressor 19:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry just saw this DissidentAggressor. This page is not on my watchlist, please {ping} me if you want to talk about stuff. I was going to ask CorporateM to do the same thing you suggested - fix it slowly-slowly - which is the way I do stuff around here (explain my edits line by line, practically). But "upon closer inspection", as we say in the biz, the old article was beyond easy tweaking. For me, anyway. And it's easier, I thought, for Wikipedians to make the article better, now that CorporateM is fully responsible for keeping it up to Wikipedia's standards of excellence. I don't mind asking him to do my job. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ad flag by LeoRomero (12.4) removed by LeoRomero (12.11)

Mabuhay! No edits since I copy-pasted the paid draft to replace the old Article except for the edits I suggested to the Pro, and tweaks by Creds and Bots. Removing the ad flag now. - Thanks; Loretta/LeoRomero (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Addendum 1": Diff of 2 steps to raise and lower Ad flag Certified True & Correct, Loretta/LeoRomero (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)