User talk:Htmjrinc

License tagging for Image:HarryWikipediaPicture.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HarryWikipediaPicture.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Harry T. Mangurian, Jr.
I tagged the page Harry T. Mangurian, Jr. as COI and supplied the following comment on the talk page: "I have tagged this page as having conflict of interest issues, what we used to call vanity. The original editor on 7 September 2007 was one Htmjrinc which has to be Harry T Mangurian Jr. This is the only article he has written or worked on and it is so hagiographic as to be nauseous." (16:29, 20 February 2008). OK, so it was a bunch of people in his office - still a COI concern. I did not suggest there were any misstatements in the article. As for the indicated references, I copy them here in full as they appear in the article:

1. Mangurian’s, Inc./General Portland Merger – 1971 Newspaper Articles 2. Boston Celtics Media Guides – 1980-1983 3. Memphis Rogues Media Guide – 1978 4. Thoroughbred Owners’ and Breeders’ Association – Archival data 5. www.harrytmangurianjr.com 6. www.ntra.com/stats_bios

The first four are vague and not usable references. The fifth is the ugly website of the company (i.e. not independent, not verifiable, COI again) and the sixth is a dead link. I stand by my original staements: there are COI concerns and (it's a personal thing) it reads like nauseous hagiography. Emeraude (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)