Talk:Tommy Tallarico

Why CleanUp

There is just to many personal stuff in here. This article needs a good cleanup --JAranda | yeah 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The liberty has been taken to throw a mop at the article; more may be needed. 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There's quite a few links to primary sources (tallarico.com, videogameslive.com, audiogang.org and even Moby Games on which Tallarico himself edits). I'm not very knowledgeable of Wiki guidelines, but I believe these aren't desirable.Zeneater (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers third party sourcing, but some first party is acceptable. See WP:PRIMARY. To give an example I give in the music world: Let's say the topic is Nickelback. A basic claim, like "Who is a band member?", could be answered by the band itself. But a claim like "Nickelback is the most critically acclaimed band in the world" could absolutely not be sourced by the band itself. Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

To add additional note to this; Tommy has a reputation within the industry and from critics for lying about, well to be quite frank, pretty much everything from his Guinness Awards to who actually made the SFX he claims ownership of, to whether his house was really featured in MTV Cribs. Your analogy of Nickelback is a good one, but I feel a primary source in this instance is only useful when compared to third-party sources when discussing controversies or misunderstandings on "facts" relating to him. I know I come across incredibly bias and to be honest I am as I've worked in the industry and been screwed over by dishonesty before, but for an article regarding an individual who's been dishonest about pretty much everything I do believe it is best practice to follow-up every single primary source with a third-party to confirm or deny it. 86.27.101.242 (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Cousin of Steve Tyler? On whose word?

The citation linked doesn't really provide any factual idea that Steve Tyler is actually related to him.

He said that although he didn’t have much in the way of formal training, he learned the accordion due to his family’s Italian heritage. Still, he was exposed to music early, including trips to the Springfield Symphony. In addition, Tallarico growing up would watch one of his cousins, Steven Tallarico, play at shows in cities like Worcester with his band that people would come to know as Aerosmith.

To which literally proves nothing. The citation (54) points to an article of an interview with Tommy Tallarico which is as meaningless without actual confirmation from peers or his own family. If anyone wishes to ask Steve Tyler if Tommy is his cousin, consider it a challenge. 2601:540:8200:135:2B28:91AD:BE72:32B8 (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Is that a normal thing to ask for? That isn't particularly a standard used on...anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 11:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No it is quite irregular, but Tallarico is an exceptional man. Posing on what was supposedly a Lamborghini, turns out it's a kit car. Searching for evidence of his alleged awards in magazine archives often turns up bupkis. (Cool Spot never won an award for sound/music.) He's often graceless, and with all the things he's lied about, it would give credence to doubt any claim he has made in his life, ever. (Such as appearing on MTV Cribs.) 2601:540:8200:135:2B28:91AD:BE72:32B8 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that directly questions or contradicts it, your other option would be to reword to your show proper attribution - that it's a claim made by him. Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, here's one. Genealogical records seem to indicate a likelihood that Steven Tyler isn't his cousin; and are at the very BEST, tenuously related. Had Mr. Tallarico not been ousted as a massive pathological liar, his claim could have been shrugged off, but here's some evidence that flies in the face of the claim, and even supposedly reputable sources like the LA Times. 2601:540:8200:187:8062:862:DBF8:F3DB (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I meant a source that Wikipedia deems usable. As has been discussed up and down this talk page, Reddit and YouTubers don't qualify. I do not understand the hang up on this minor, trivial talking point. Claiming you're related to a member of Aerosmith is not some huge bragging point in the 2020s. I honestly don't see a strong reason to remove or keep adding it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As the person who did that Reddit investigation, the current wording of "Tallarico has claimed to be a cousin of Steven Tyler (born Steven Tallarico), lead singer of the band Aerosmith" is adequate to me. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Need for 3rd Party Sources

This article, like Tommy Tallarico's life, is littered with extreme statements made and supported only by him. If I have the time I'll start going through and sorting things out, but until then I've added a label pointing out that many of the claims in the article--like being homeless before landing his first big gig--are ultimately just things he said himself. The citations link to the articles he's being interviewed in, but because they're not ultimately making those claims (just including a transcript where he made them) I believe this falls under WP:INDEPENDENT.

I think that throwing out anything that doesn't have 3rd party confirmation would solve a lot of the issues and criticism surrounding this article. Elaboration Station (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It could definitely use a good neutral, level headed review of its sourcing. I've watched over the article a bit due to being asked to help moderate some related issues elsewhere, and I don't know why, but this appears to be one of those articles that either gets editors trying to completely glorify him, or people who go out of their way to trash him and portray him in the worst light, and there's little in-between. It could use a good review by an experienced editor with no bias for or against him. Sergecross73 msg me 04:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Free warning: Hbomberguy uploaded a video on him.

It's an amazing two hour deconstruction of his entire career, and it even doesn't touch on all the little lies he's told though the years. But I imagine there's going to be a zerg rush of people eagarly looking foreward to try and use the video as a source instead of following WP:Original policy. 2601:540:8200:187:8062:862:DBF8:F3DB (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

By definition, nothing attributed/attributable to a Nebula/YouTube video can be WP:OR. Technically Harris's video is considered to be self-published, so it cannot be cited in this article, but the relevant policy is WP:BLPSPS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully it at least spurs people on to double-check all the sources in this article. The video did cite proper sources which are fair game to use here. Antiaverage (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This would not be a reliable/usable source by Wikipedia definitions. Unless reliable sources start covering/corroborating, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say it is a reliable source for the opinions of the notable personality in question, and even for general factual claims (Harris has a pretty good reputation for critical reading of sources, making him at worst a WP:TERTIARY source), at least by the standards of Wikipedia's pop culture articles (which generally rely nearly exclusively on the kind of dubious sources discussed at various points in the video). The problem with citing it directly in this article is that, as a self-published source, we are explicitly banned from citing it in a BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm largely referring to that last bit - this being a BLP and the source being self-published WP:YOUTUBE source. That's not even close to acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's talk about Alexander Lasarenko. He was practically an unknown man that until a few days ago, was rapidly being forgotten thanks to the way the larger industry works. There's only so few sources that could be found that states he existed, and one of those is an obituary. The main reason anyone is going to know about him is due to a video that Kevin Perjurer made. Nobody is going to make a news article on Alex. Trying to define the strength of a source though it being put on a television screen is an obsolete metric.

The way how news is diffused and how culture pops has changed. Let me posit this: Do you consider Kevin to not be a reliable source, in spite of the massive undertaking he went though, just because he's a "Youtuber"? 2601:540:8200:187:8062:862:DBF8:F3DB (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB if you need more help understanding why this isn't even close to a usable source to anyone who understands how Wikipedia works. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Is Nebula self-publishing? There's editorial oversight of who their creators are. 108.16.57.129 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If you mean the streaming service, then probably not. There's generally a difference between websites that have mods/admin that censor rule-breaking content (Youtube/Nebula/Twitch etc) and actually being a publication that full on publishes content with actual editorial staff, editorial policies, employees with professional credentials, etc, IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, etc), which is more what we're looking for. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Nebula would probably still be self published. It seems more a collective of self-publishers than an independent editor of its content creators. But that's just my first impression and not a detailed analysis of their editorial standards. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Lasarenko and the Defunctland video are clearly distinguishable from Tallarico and the Hbomberguy video. WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLP clearly prevent a self published source (like a YouTube video) from being a source on the biography of a living person. You're missing the arg if you think the problem is "because he's a YouTuber". The arg is its self published and this is a biography of a living person. If Defuntland/Hbomberguy had published the video in DVD form its still a WP:SPS. The problem isn't the medium, its the method of publication (specifically how it lacks a clear editorial process to verify claims). However, if Defunctland is " an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications," then their video could be citable for Lasarenko because he is not a living person. For Hbomberguy and Tallarico, the problem with his video and why it's definitely uncitable, despite the fact Hbomb is arguably a subject matter expert, is because Tallarico is a living person. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section

As stated above, Hbomberguy recently uploaded a video about this man, that's what led me here. Obviously, YouTube links aren't a reliable source, but the video does bring into question a lot of Tallarico's claims over the years. If other sources have also objected, I feel it'd be worth compiling them + other related controversies into a controversy section. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSECTION. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As of right now, there are not enough sources discussing a "controversy" to justify such a section (which as is noted in the relevant policy, shouldn't be called "controversy" if a basis for it emerges, and we also need to keep WP:DUE in mind). However, if you decide to look at the article for yourself and find any questionable claims, unreliable or dubious sources, or phrasings that seem in breach of WP:NPOV, you're free to remove or reword them, or bring them here for discussion as appropriate. (I see you've already done some of that, so I guess you don't need me to tell you, but I may as well also note it for the benefit of anyone else who comes along.) silvia (inquire within) 18:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Listen, Serge. Lots of people, living or dead have controversies. Steve Jobs, Richard Stallman, Caligula, Bill Gates, so why should Tommy be the exception here? I commend your defense of the man, but the deck has become increasingly stacked against him, and maybe there's something a little head turning about a man trying to smuggle $100k across the border. Of course, the argument could be made that since there are few articles that are valid citations regarding him that he in fact, violates Notability policy and this whole article has no reason to exist; especially considering the previous state of it as WP:Puff.

As, if we're having to track musicians whose only notable contribution is proliferation, then the articles on Soyo Oka, Kenichi Tsuchiya, Yūko Takehara, Tsukasa Masuko and several others need to leave the Red Link Club. 2601:540:8200:187:8062:862:DBF8:F3DB (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note that not a single one of your own examples have a dedicated section called "controversies", so I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that. You can write about controversial things people do, you just need to do it right. That includes things like not bunching it up into one section, writing in formal encyclopedic tone, and using the types of sources Wikipedia policies and consensus have deemed as reliable/usable. As I've already noted multiple times in this talk page, I'm just an admin who largely watches over the page because of another semi-related conflict I was asked to help mediate. I've written very little of the current article. I just mediate because most editors, for whatever reason, are extremely positive, or extremely negative, about Tallarico. I'm here to remind people that Wikipedia is neither the place to build him like some sort of god, or an outlet for once's grievances on him. It's an encyclopedia, not a place to write a hit piece. Sergecross73 msg me 19:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Serge is correct, the HBomberguy video should only be added if it breaks more mainstream news. It may yet happen--the Roblox sound controversy has already generated some coverage, especially among 'gamer' publications. Until then, the job is just to revise the article in light of what can and cannot be properly sourced.Elaboration Station (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As per the linked policy, it appears "Criticisms" would be a more preferable section title. I've added one (it is admittedly not rigorous nor well-sourced, but it's a start) and I have also added a section on his money smuggling incident. Anyone else's contributions to this would be greatly appreciated. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? WP:CSECTION literally says to avoid "criticism" sections too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In any event, the hbomberguy video is, ultimately a self-published source and is not a reliable source for a BLP (see WP:SELFPUB.) Any information in the article which cites that as a source is unusable. If other third-party sources report on it (by this I mean independent reporting, not just an article saying the video exists) then it can be included. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not really how reliability works. If a source we consider reliable were to publish an article that sources facts to the video, we would assume that they verified or were otherwise certain that said claims were true, and therefore could be trusted. It's not like YouTube videos can't be reliable, but that Wikipedia chooses to not have that debate for each individual video ourselves, because that would be a huge waste of time and often quite subjective. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand that. I’m merely pointing out that BLPs have heightened standards for reliable sources due to the need to avoid publishing potentially libelous/revealing info about the subjects. To that end, WP: SELFPUB explicitly bans using self-published sources in BLPs even if the author of the source would otherwise be considered trustworthy. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you're both wording it differently, but essentially on the same page (and correct.) This self-published YouTube source is not usable in of itself, but if future reliable sources corroborate parts of its content, then those parts could be fair game for inclusion (by citing the corroborating source.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the current article takes an appropriately sanguine attitude toward Tallarico's claims, even without a dedicated section. He's clearly a serial fabulist so any unusual claims require extraordinary evidence. You can interrogate the claims, including ones from the hbomberguy video, without directly citing the video itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. As I've mentioned elsewhere, unfortunately, the article has few regular contributors, it's mostly people in passing who are more concerned about aggressively trashing or defending him than anyone trying to just neutrally write a professional encyclopedia article. I'm mostly just here to keep out the gross BLP or COI additions that keep arising time and again. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The current incarnation of this article dates from this edit, which is clearly from an SPA connected to the subject in some way. A lot of the puffery had been stripped out over the years, but I did have to gut the Personal life section---originally added under "Advocacy" by said SPA---because it basically all failed verification (and no one had bothered to click on any of the refs in all these years...). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Inadequate attribution to 'critics'

"The console has been viewed very negatively by critics, drawing criticism for its delays, development turmoil, and use of NFTs. The status of the console has been called 'grim' and compared to a car crash."

There are five articles sourced for these statements, four of which are from the same website.

Unless more sources can be found which share these criticisms, they should be attributed to Kotaku (4/5) and TechRaptor (1/5) respectively. 'Critics' is too vague when the criticism is mostly coming from one source. Shoutout hbomb. Cadenrock1 (talk) Cadenrock1 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There's plenty more sources at the Amico article. Hbomb doesn't belong in there until professional publications publish him. See multiple sections on this talk page that already discuss that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Sergecross73. I think the better change would be to vary the sources cited here with some from Intellivision Amico/new sources instead of removing or changing the wording. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes suggested and I think the current "Intellivision Entertainment" section is now fine. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

And now he's been sued. (Again.)

I know, this isn't supposed to be a chronicle of the meaningless or the meandering, but it involves another six digit figure. [1]https://imgur.com/gxV1vlJ Here is an image of the docket image with case number, along with the names of the plaintiff and the revelation that Tommy signed for over 100k$ worth of furnishings. 2601:540:8200:187:8062:862:DBF8:F3DB (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC) This of course also applies to Intellivision Amico and their cosplay offices.

Happy New Year! Primary sources like these are generally discouraged over other sourcing and citing court documents in WP:BLP usually violates BLP (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). If there is any reporting in a WP:RS we can add details, but without it I don't think either source provided meets criteria for inclusion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Certainly something to keep an eye on, but we need to wait until reliable sources start reporting on it before it belongs in Wikipedia articles, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Guinness world record "(Gamer's edition)" clarification incorrect.

As far as I understand the Gamer's Edition is a series of Guinness world record books, not a type of record. Tallarico has been awarded two "regular" world records, and I don't think leaving out the clarification necessarily implies he appears in any of the Guinness world records books. If anything the "(gamer's edition)" thing implies he appeared in one those books for his records, and he only appeared in the 2008 book for an interview. So unless he also appears in one of the other books, this bit also implies something that is incorrect. I'd change it myself but can't due to it being semi protected. ApollyonicCicerone (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to submit a change WP:EDITREQUEST-style. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve edited the section to reflect the above edits (and also did some minor wording improvements as well.) I’d also add that the sentences following this one seem somewhat editorial—they exist solely to correct Tallarico’s claim that he holds the record for the largest “symphonic” performance (which he does not). It’s my opinion that this is probably not fit for the neutral tone of this website; however, given the extraordinary claims this man has made otherwise, it’s worth discussing whether it makes sense to address it in some fashion. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The "800,000" record used to contradict Tallarico's record is just an estimate: 756,000 people for Tallarico vs "an estimated 800,000" for the Philaharmonic does not indicate a clear front-runner. The text in this Wikipedia article reads "as the largest attendance at the classical music concert was 800,000 at the New York Philharmonic performance in New York in 1986." "was 800,000" is not accurate. It was an "estimated 800,000." The round number was a dead giveaway.97.127.44.143 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

A biased mod is protecting this article way too much

People keep trying to add verified/confirmed information about Tommy and his personality and his controversies but one mod seems very biased and won’t let you add anything if it isn’t positive or complimentary towards Tommy. It comes across as very biased and unprofessional. Can we please try and keep emotion(s) out of this? 2600:1001:B0E8:353:9868:9314:D2FF:E10F (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand the frustration of trying to add things and not being able to, but this is not about Serge (or any admin) being biased - it's that Wikipedia has particularly strict policies on how to handle biographies of living people, compared to other articles.--Alexandra^IDV 21:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no bias. The people who hate him think I'm too soft on him, and the people who love him think I'm to harsh on him. I can't think of any greater sign of neutrality. Also, for the record, I've written almost none of the current article, and have largely just been undoing egregiously policy-violating edits and informing people of police's and guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Really, if someone wanted to go out of their way to complain about his wacky escapades, there would need to be definitive proof from every acceptable source that he's a complete hack and a fraud, and even then there would be the issues of NPOV, not making an article just a pile of quotes, and the good things he actually did (like being a competent composer). As is, I don't think there's much reliable proof of... really anything he's done post-Guinness interview, good or bad, besides public events and his own word.

Even ignoring all of this and believing every secondary source, the article would be an overly positive or negative mess, which would inevitably get reverted and protected even harder.

Tommy's a man who says he's done a lot of things, and is said to have done a lot of things. I don't think it's possible to make constructive changes to this article until we can be 100% sure what's actually true about him. cogsan (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ima Prophet, LOL!06:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talk • contribs)

Yes, congrats, you too made baseless, evidence free accusations that failed to gain any support from other regular editors. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

What happened this time? cogsan (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The above editor who failed to sign their comment, has also accused me of bias in the past. The irony being is Dalton only writes very positive commentary on Tallorico and the Amico, while this IP is mad about now allowing negative content in the article. Dalton was so eager to try to take a cheap shot at me that he didn't realize he was actually proving my point I made in my first comment in this section. The truth is just that each side of the debate is just getting mad at me when I moderate their efforts to POV push. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Tommy was being "not very [[BIG SHOT!]]" again.

So there was no prophecy, and this is just a petty debacle over what anyone outside of Tommy's friend circle(s) says is either a scam or something Thomas Vandrew Tallarico didn't have the knowledge or attention span to do.

If I haven't misread the rules, it's probably fine to have less than savory info on his business strategies if reliable sources prove they're not really very poggers, but even then there's the POV thing to keep in mind, with the reverse also being true for good things he's done (like making the good musicsounds). cogsan (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're on the right track. We have to follow WP:NPOV. The problem generally comes down to the basic premise of Wikipedia - verifying all content by use of reliable sources. Most of the claims of bias are coming from editors who don't understand what Wikipedia deems as reliable sources. The people who want to add negative content often want to use this content created by Youtubers or Reddit that pretty clearly violate WP:BLPSPS. But I'm the bad guy when I tell them about their basic policy violations. Same thing when editors just want to ignore/remove content that does come from reliable sources, but doesn't match their preferred stance. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The only real reason I don't think any edits CAN be made right now is because alleged MTV Cribs star Tommy Tallarico seems to have lied or greatly exaggerated about nearly everything he's done off-camera, ever. So this might be a stupid dumb suggestion for a case like this, but I'd rather wait until reliable sources somehow figure out what actually happened before jumping to protect or talk shit about him, which I don't think will be happening anytime soon.

tl;dr for everything I said thus far: I think about 60% of everything we know about Tommy, good or bad, is questionable-at-best hearsay, and am not good enough at this Wikipedia thing to verify half of it.

...but seriously, what letter does his middle name start with? cogsan (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

There was a prophecy. I said Serge was going to get accused of being biased and having a conflict of interest and this came to pass. And I wrote very little about the Amico and nothing in this article: mostly just removing or making more neutral comments in the Amico article when the parade of people posted negative comments with no good source, the same as Serge is doing. The poorly sourced negative comments are probably 100 times the positive. Also, I never accused Serge of bias. I just think the "experienced" editors have a thug-cronyism mentality toward amateur editors and their system is deeply flawed. Daltonsatom (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You were not "doing the same thing as me". I'm a neutral mediator asked to intervene from a Wikiproject. You were an active participant in one of the disputes I was asked to look into. And you stormed off when you didn't get your way, and now spend most of your time here grumbling about Wikipedia to no one on your user page and making vague passerby comments that don't make any sense to anyone. That's not something a neutral mediator does. Anyways, regardless, please stop, you've derailed this discussion enough as it is, as you don't really appear to have a constructive contribution to the discussion other than talking about a prophecy no one knew about to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not a prophecy. Also, where did the CoI thing come from? cogsan (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Dalton was accused of having conflict of interest (COI) because virtually every edit he made to Wikipedia articles was in regards to adding positive sentiment or removing negative content related to the Intellivision Amico/Tommy Tallarico. No one has accused me of that, nor would anyone have reason to, so I'm not really sure why he brought that up. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

So he somehow misread accusations people made of him as being accusations he made against you?

I don't get it, and I should probably keep not getting it. cogsan (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It's probably best to just let this discussion sink into the the talk page WP:ARCHIVES. The original complaint was frivolous, and has only attracted further frivolous comments. The only redeeming parts were our talks on policy really. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)