If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article
Frank Dux, 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:
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. Thank you. 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.
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia: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 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)
ok, just seemed like something bad and unjustified. No worries. Tommy814 ( talk) 02:30, 29 July 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)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article
Frank Dux, 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:
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. Thank you. 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.
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia: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 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)
ok, just seemed like something bad and unjustified. No worries. Tommy814 ( talk) 02:30, 29 July 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)