User talk:Tacktician

Question
Hi, can you expose what are your ties with Soka Gakkai ? According to your contributions you edit only around this subject, which in itself is not a problem; but it becomes one when you keep trying to delete sources and content, pretending there is rule violation, that the source is not good enough, etc. It appears for me that there is a portential conflict of interet. Thanks, Asterix757 (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, I recognize many of your edits as BLP violations. I'll try to be more clear in the future by elaborating on my revisions and deletions of them, instead of only listing the policies. No, I have no conflict-of-interest ties with either Soka Gakkai or Daisaku Ikeda. Daisaku Ikeda is well known, inter alia, among NGO communities. I do admire his good works and wish I had more time to edit. And you, do you have conflict-of-interest ties? Tacktician (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not only edited Ikeda but also : Tsunesaburō and Soka Gakkai International, but suprisely no other subject, except to add or remove information about Soka Gakkai . And despite that, you dare pretending not having ties ? I doubt that, and for now I'll get less confidence into you. I, on the contrary edit on various subject. And I edited Daisaku Ikeda because I saw there where no one mention about controversies, yet this is a significant aspect of his career. and there are a lot of scholar sources about that. I've also noticed sometime you to presented sources in a misleading way, and you are pretending BLP violation only to remove critical sources (yet form scholars).  Asterix757 (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The copious amounts of time you devote and sense of indignation you stress seem that of a paid advocate. For my part, I'll assume good faith. Tacktician (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What a joke ! you pretendly assume my good faith but at the same time you are writing that it "seem" that i'm a "paid advocate". Paid by whom please ? As I wrote to you, when I red the Ikeda article, and saw in the history that every controversial aspect had been deleted, It was clear for me that it was necessary to intervene. And the time I'm wasting (instead of "devote" as you write) is because of you (along with ‎Sandalwood33, at the beginning, who have at least the transparency to declare that he is a SGI member), to ask for the quote, then pretending it's not complete, then the questioning quality of sources, pretending rule violation, deleting scholar sources, etc. Asterix757 (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda
Hi Tacktician. I received your email regarding Daisaku Ikeda, but this issue should be engaged in public forums rather than private emails, so I am going to reply here. You should discuss the issue on the article's talk page, the other user's talk page, or even WP:3O if you need an outside perspective, at least as a first step. Wikipedia has no deadline, so there is no immediate need to resolve content disputes like this and aside from a slow edit war, there seems to be no overtly disruptive editing here. I understand that it can be frustrating, but following the proper procedures, even if you feel the information currently in the article is wrong, is important to the sustainability and stability of the project. I will continue to keep an eye on the page, but you will need to at least attempt a discussion on the issue before anything further can be done. Canadian  Paul  00:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your reply. I'd thought to send you a "P.S.", about utilizing the article talk page, but you've covered that here. (By the way, I just noticed I forgot to sign my last article talk post, in December, which has gone unanswered. Any suggestions on that?) When I have time again, I'll be sure to utilize the talk page. Tacktician (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)