User talk:Zennie62

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Zennie62. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Phil Tagami, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Dharmalion76 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmalion76: Hello, Dharmalion76. As I stated before, Mr. Tagami called me to ask if I had any idea what could be done with a bad Wikipedia entry. He's my friend but wondered if I knew anyone who could correct what was written. I told him I would find someone. But then, given that it was really upsetting him because he didn't write it, I decided to take up the task. There was no talk of being hired - noting like that. He is my friend and since 1991. Moreover, in reading the initial entry, it looked like it was written by an Oakland blogger. That person had a personal animus toward Phil. To write an entire Wikipedia entry and then tag it as an auto-biography when Phil did not write it is beyond wrong. But that's what was done. That paragraph should be removed. I'm not acting in conflict - and the entry is not factual.Zennie62 (talk) 8:00PM, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are acting on behalf of the article subject then you have a conflict of interest. That is clearly outlined in the subsection found here. It was tagged as an autobiography because a series of single purpose accounts with names like Ptagami and Tagami were adding text that was incredibly POV towards the article subject. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmalion76: I'm curious: do you have some personal issue with Phil Tagami such that you want inaccurate information there about him? Regardless of the person, the information will be removed. (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Tagami at all. I was watching Special:RecentChanges when I saw your edits removing content and claiming to do so on behalf of the article subject. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmalion76: That's fair. So, all I am working to do is remove that one paragraph. I can call a friend who doesn't know Phil and is on Wikepedia, but it would result in the same: the removal of that paragraph that is emotionally bothering him. I hope you understand. Thanks. Moreover, it is poorly sourced - the blog post is wrong. (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you call someone else to act on behalf of the article subject then they have a conflict of interest. That is clearly outlined in the subsection found here. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Phil Tagami. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC) @Dharmalion76: Please stop gaslighting my attempt to correct the Phil Tagami entry. Your edits appear to constitute an involvement in a fraudulent attempt to smear a person. Also, Phil has stated that none of the entries, including gthe accounts you mentioned, were him. My entry was not vandalism in the least - that was complete hyperbole. Zennie62 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Also note @Dharmalion76: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you are removing isn't unsourced or even poorly sources. You are making POV edits on behalf of the article subject. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmalion76: What I am removing is a poorly sourced blog entry in an article that claims to be about him, that Phil Tagami didn't even write, and yet was tagged as an "autobiography." Rubbish. There's no reason to support it. Moreover, you support an author that now obviously is the person who WORKED FOR Phil Tagami, and thus was acting in conflict. That's wrong. (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Phil Tagami, you may be blocked from editing. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC) @Dharmalion76: Please stop gaslighting and supporting libelous Phil Tagami page. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Phil Tagami, you may be blocked from editing as well.[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Phil Tagami. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look @Dharmalion76: now the Phil Tagami page will be removed, not by me, but it will be gone.

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC) You mean the dishonest people, one of whom may be named Joshua Daniels, are talking about an honest man. I am honored. I won. I see where it's not a good thing to tell the truth on Wikipedia. That explains a lot of problems. (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]