User talk:Emandery

conflict of interest

Hello, Emandery. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Evan Mandery, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

My addition to the above:

In case the username was coincidental, including deliberately created by someone else, I clicked on the photo and saw that what it said there, combined with the article's content, effectively said it's not. And your list of contributions was similarly indicative. The most recent edits were not under the same username but were from an anonymous (i.e., quasianonymous) editor at an IP address that is likely located in Manhasset, New York and the editor at that IP address has edited only this article.

An example of how a conflict of interest might be handled after it is declared appears at the article's talk page.

I, too, have a conflict of interest in editing this article and will proceed accordingly.

Best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC) (Replaced the template and, minor, spaced the heading: 16:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)) (Separated what was not due to the template and and fixed a link (my error): 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

email and answer

Thanks for your email. Since I also have a conflict of interest, I'll be cautious.

Writing about yourself is generally a conflict of interest, constrained by both the main COI guideline's section on it and a specific guideline on autobiography.

I'm not sure you meant to ask about having "the page taken down". If you meant that literally, you can nominate the page for deletion (click on links for anything of interest) and other editors will consider your request, but my guess is that you meet the notability guideline for having an article about you. However, I think you meant to ask about keeping the page up but editing the page consistently with having a conflict of interest, and there is a guide for that (there's also an official guideline), or you meant to ask about having only the conflct of interest tag taken down, which can happen after an editor thinks or decides the article has been cleaned up sufficiently that the conflict has no remaining effect (the template instruction says, "[l]ike the other neutrality-related tags, this tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found").

You're right about leniency toward new users, which basically means that people can edit before they've read the voluminous policies and guidelines and a few of the more important essays, but it doesn't alter what should be in the articles, which have to comply with the policies and guidelines regardless of who edited. This apparent contradiction is resolved by referring editors who are new or who erred to what would likely govern their situation.

On the article's talk page, I've posted on poker and other matters. I was thinking of requesting that some third editor take a look (there are systems for doing so that avoid canvassing for specific editors) but I can wait while you take a look and see what you can suggest. An editor had deleted the Career content; it may be restorable if sourcing is supplied. A conflict of interest does not bar your postng on talk pages.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC) (Corrected a missing comma: 16:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Emandery. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Evan Mandery.The discussion is about the topic Evan Mandery. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]