User talk:Bluethirtytwo

Wikipedia Editor,


 * Just to point out, its not always in the best interest of wikipedia to create or have others write articles for something you are associated with. There is something that exists called "conflict of interest" which more often than not, ends up causing all kinds of problems, just like the ones that developed with the article for a building you own. You even state above that you had your employees create the article, which could be considered by some as conflict of interest. As for your accusations of vandalism of the article, that particular editor was acting on the request of others to review the article. It was another editor that reduced the content, but those edits are clearly not vandalism. That editor was making the article more appropiate for wikipedia. Those editors do hours upon hours of work for the good of the wikipedia project, and sadly, have to put up with accusations of vandalism from a new user who admits to knowing little about wikipedia editing. Maybe you should take a look at similar articles, and see for yourself what an encyclopedia article should consist of. Another thing to do, is read up on policies about editing, which if you had of done in the first place, may have prevented alot of these problems form occuring. 142.68.233.149 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am an administrator here, and I would be willing to start up a conversation about Toddst1 with regards to unblocking this account. However, there are some things you'd have to agree to before I do so.
 * Wikipedia has a policy against editing with a conflict of interest; that is we agree to avoid editing or creating articles about ourselves, our businesses, organizations we belong to, or other topics where we have a vested interest likely to prevent us from editing from a neutral point-of-view. If you have suggestions for the article in question, you can make them at the article's "talk page" where other editors can evaluate them.  We are very interested at Wikipedia in getting these articles "right" and we want your input in topics you are close to; but it is important to do it the right way, and the article talk page is the best way to handle a situation like this.  If you are unblocked, do you agree to abide by this policy?
 * Wikipedia has policies against maintaining multiple accounts in an attempt to deceive others in believing two different accounts are really two different people, when it is in fact one person (called sockpuppetry). However, Wikipedia also discourages gathering a group of your friends together to edit articles at you behest, for the sole purpose of ganging up and overwhelming other editors.  Such a practice is called meatpuppetry.  In many cases, sockpuppetry is indistinguishible from meatpuppetry, and since both practices are equally as bad for a collaborative project like Wikipedia, it usually doesn't matter which is going on.  Do you agree to abide by Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and will you stick to one account, and avoid meatpuppetry as well?
 * If you can agree to abide by these principles, I think we can work something out. -- Jayron  32  03:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've cleared the unblock request, above, pending your response to Jayron32's comments here. If you're amenable to working with us, we'd be happy to assist you, both with editing in compliance with policy, and with posting a properly sourced, neutral article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that after this unpleasant experience I will abide by the principals outlines in the conflict of interest pages, and the wiki prohibition against "sock or meat puppetry". In order to avoid any hint of a conflict of interest and to promote the accuracy of the information on this page, I would ask that someone other than myself correct some factual errors on this Dickson Tavern page. William Himrod was never an architect he may have been the builder of the building but I would request that there be some submission of proof before that is posted. The building as a museum open to the public closed much earlier than 2004, and the newspaper article cited in connection with the new owners of the building has numerous errors and fabrications and should not be associated with this page. Finally I would request that the sentence "It was often alleged that the tunnels under the Dickson Tavern were a part of the Underground Railroad, but the claims have since been disputed." be rephrased because there are no tunnels now nor were there ever tunnels under or near the building. There is no printed evidence that there were tunnels ever discovered, and I would be happy to show any interested parties the building and the glaring omission of tunnels and secret passageways. At one point this page did have a link to a book called Journey to Jerusalem chronicling African American history in Erie PA that clearly debunks these myths. Thank you for your time. bluethirtytwo