User talk:Tommy814

July 2009
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no close connection to anybody concerning this article and I'm not sure why I'm receiving this message.

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Tommy814 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had any issues with you
I don't know if you are a re-incarnation of a previously blocked editor or not. At this point, I don't care if you are. As I told another editor when they voiced their suspicion, I will engage you in discussion as long as you conduct yourself reasonably. So far, you've done so. So to me, you are either a different guy or the same guy who decided to engage in an adult discussion instead of the childish silliness that went on before. I have no issues with you at this point. And I've said the same thing in the sock puppet investigation. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who these blocked people are but apparently they're placing a damper on these conversations. I think our discussions have been fine, I've had no beef with you, I've presented what I thought was good stuff and you had very reasonable rebuttals. I thought that what trying to prove a controversy was all about.Tommy814 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * don't be offended by a sockpuppetry report. if you are innocent, you'll be vindicated. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, just seemed like something bad and unjustified. No worries.Tommy814 (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that you don't know who the other accounts belong to. It strikes me as strange that we have account 1 that comes and solely targets the Frank Dux article, arguing, edit warring, making threats etc. That account gets blocked. A person using the same name as you writes to unblock, asking for that account to be unblocked and complaining that the block was unfair. I refused and then the following week your account is created and you too then focus solely on the Dux article. And did I mention that you and the "other fellow" both use the same name and both focus 100% on the Dux article? Sorry but not buying it. I'm sorely tempted to reblock this account for block evasion. But I will refrain from doing so as long as you behave yourself and abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The minute you start acting up again, I will block you, no second chances, further warnings or anything. Of course, I can't speak for any other admins and if/when the checkuser request comes back positive you will likely be blocked by checkusers or their clerks, so you might like to go back and make amends with the person/people you threatened and tried to intimidate and deal with the reasons that led to the original block before that happens, otherwise I guess you'll be moving onto another account soon. Sarah 13:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you got me. I am one of the people listed but not all of them. The checkuser will show that. I took an aggressive, non-neutral stance on a topic and took offense at some comments that I felt were personal attacks. I have since conducted many conversations with the person I made negative comments to and hope to continue our conversations they way that they have been going as they have been neutral and constructive to this article. If you or the checkusers decide to ban me for block evasion then so be it. I've changed my stance on the topic and want to be more constructive and not so critical and defensive. The block you put on me WAS justified and I can admit that. What I said to the other user was uncalled for but I was just getting frustrated because to me it felt like this user was non-neutral as well, just on the other side of the spectrum. They way we've been speaking are neutral, I try to provide some stuff and he either accepts it or provides good rebuttals. I hope I can have a second chance with this. I'm pretty much done with the whole Frank Dux article anyway and hope to add to some other topics. Like I said before, if I'm banned, I'm banned but I would like a second chance. I think one slip up can be forgiven as it was just a defensive yet admittedly personal attack against another user for which I do apologize.Tommy814 (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, well that sounds good to me and I won't block you or ask anyone else to do so as long as you're playing nice. But of course, I don't have any control over other admins who might feel differently. However, now that you've recognised that you were out of line and pledged to try to work with the other editors in an appropriate way, I think the block has done its purpose and is no longer warranted and that you should be given another chance. As long as you're not being disruptive and are trying to follow policies and guidelines, I would urge other admins to try to refrain from blocking again for past issues because blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and this block has served its preventative purpose and IMO appears no longer warranted. If that kind of behaviour resumes again though please understand you will be blocked. If you feel frustrated with other users, it's often best to turn the computer off and then come back when you're feeling calm. Sarah 12:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * i agree with this. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)