Talk:Eric Thiman

COI or not?

I notice that Theroadislong has added the COI template to this page, presumably because Guyscottturner identified himself as the archivist of the Eric Thiman Collection here. I would tend to assume that an archivist is akin to a librarian (in fact the collection may be part of a library's holdings) and thus not the same as, say, a publicist for or family member of Eric Thiman who would definitely have a conflict of interest. This is my first time running into such a situation, and I'm curious what other editors' opinions on the matter are.

It would also be helpful if Guyscottturner would clarify the status of the collection (i.e. whether it is held at a library, museum, university or similar institution, or simply a private collection) as well as whether being archivist for the collection is the whole of his position or merely a part of larger curatorial or librarian duties, and whether the archivist positon is paid or volunteer.

Thanks in advance to all who participate in this discussion. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

For clarity: The Eric Thiman Collection is part of the Southwell Minster Choir Library. The collection is available for anyone who wishes to view it. I am a freelance musician and composer, and I earn a little of my income from being the archivist of the Thiman collection. It is part of this role to spread the word about his music and to encourage performance of his work. However I do not benefit from his royalties, as all these go to the Royal Academy of Music. I cannot see that there would be any conflict of interest unless I were the RAM or one of Thiman's publishers. I hope this clarifies matters. Guy Turner Guyscottturner (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Paid editing Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and a newbie, thus a target for quick suspicion. However, there is evidence of good faith and willingness to learn, rather than of clever subterfuge or unreasonable obstinacy. Seems like no problem as long as disclosure is full. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)