User talk:Berksguy/Archive

04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)== User:Mheckman1978 ==

What is going on  Glen  02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent

Ive removed the trolling (including personal attacks) from this page - this is not a place for you to be soapboxing  Glen  02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally beg to differ that the information I have been posting has been a personal attack. It was a factual posting of information from an individuals site. I will although abide by your decision.

I want to clarify on what was going on here. Mheckman1978 is a member of the berks blog network which the content that Berksguy was using against Matt Heckman was in direct violation of our copyright laws. Berksguy in no way shape or form has gained permission to use our sites content on his user talk page or any other page. We have provided information to other articles in the past for educational purposes, and what Berksguy did with our content was not for "educational" purposes. I will admit that Mheckman1978 may have gone over the top, but was justified in removing copyright protected content. Furthermore Berksguy was also the one that started this affair that caused things to blow out of control as shown in the history trail in both the discussion and usertalk pages. For that I request that Berksguy is equally banned for the same thing Mheckman1978 was.

Regards,

Administrator for the berks blog network. —The preceding

Ahem; "Childish behavior caused some moron (probably named Matthew Heckman)..." - ring a bell?  Glen  03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this rings a bell. On the other hand this was not the individual I was responding to. If that was the only item in question, then it is in the history. The posting that you have now informed me not to put back was not directed at the individual with the IP I referred to as a moron (which may have been going to far but I was upset at the time).

As for the comments from the administrator about copywritten material, no where on the blog in question is there any information concerning copyright. If the information concerning the copyright is only on the main page of the Berks Blog Network then they need to be aware that the information should also be on each of their blog members pages so that I and others would be aware of such a stipulation. If I had been aware of such a problem I would have simply referenced the page rather than cutting and pasting the comments which would not have violated a copyright in any way. Either way, I will not put the quotes back here. I would also like to note that at no time did MHeckman1978 ask that the information be removed for the reasons that the administrator has specified. His only reason was that he believed the information to be in error.

Thank you Glen for taking the time to clarify things for me. I appreciate it.And the truth shall set you free! 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this ring a bell as well Berksguy? "14:49, 10 December 2006 Berksguy (Talk | contribs) (Interesting conversation. Especially since Mofo IS Matt.)"

This is consistant with Berksguy, and Mheckman1978 would never have reacted if it were not for Berksguy's remarks accusing him. He naturally had a right to threaten leagl action. Again if Mheckman1978 is going to be banned, then the same sould apply to Berksguy for starting all of this in the first place. [User:72.78.174.93|72.78.174.93 ]]

I would like to ask what is 'consistant'. I do not recalling making that remark. Obviously I did. If that previous comment had been referenced specifically earlier maybe all of this would have been solved sooner? As for the copyright issue, it is still true that no where on the blog in question was there a statement concerning copyright at the time the information was initially copied and pasted. In addition, Mheckman1978 was not banned for personal attacks alone, I believe he was banned for the threat of legal action which is a clear violation of the rules of the Wikipedia. You can read more about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats.

I have abided by the ruling of Glen in accordance with the rules of the Wiki. In the future, Mheckman may want to consider taking the appropriate action in accordance with the rules of a site before he immediately makes the threat of legal action. "You can catch more ants with sugar than you can with a sledge hammer" my mother always used to say.

One last thing, this did not start with the statemene last referenced by 72.78.174.93. I think it is important to note that I was accused of being someone I am not by the two individuals in question PRIOR to my statement about the identity of GMW. In other words, my decision to act in defense of my own identity came first, though admittedly I may not have initially handled it in the most appropriate manner.

Excuse me, despite people "accusing" you of somebody you are "not" is not the point. YOU were the one that came out and pointed to Matt Heckman as the reason. You continued to point to Matt Heckman over and over, and the admins proudly endorsed it until Matt threatened to sue your pants off. All this talk from admins about sourcing everything, but yet holds a double standard when it came to Matt. You Berksguy started this, and I can say that, because it is sourced by your own page history. Remember Matt Heckman can get a lawyer and by court order force the Wikipedia admins to bring up your ip address, and other information to contact you. If that is the case will we see The Reading Eagle's IP behind your name? I'm not accusing as you can see, but asking a question.Unsigned User

First of all, look at the time that I made the statement listed above @ 14:49 on December 10th. Notice that that the accusation that my username was an “alias of The Reading Eagle Company.” was made at 23:19 on November 18th by the IP user 72.78.153.27. I did not remove that vandalism until December 2nd which is when I made the assumption that is was Matt.(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berksguy&diff=91530085&oldid=88701809). So, if we do the math 10-2 we get a difference of 8 days, if we go one step further and look at when it started on November 18th, I did not make the first assumption that Matt was GMW (which I could have been wrong about) until a total of 15 days later!

That being said we then have a post on December 8th that was removed that mentioned Matt by the GMW, followed by 3 posts from GMW which were vandalism. We then finally come to the message in question where I made the comment about Matt being Mofo. That all being said, we now see that I in no way at the initial time I mentioned Matt’s name tied him to the IP address 72.92.23.144. In fact, I did not mention it again until 8 days later after I was accused of being a “political operative who works for The Reading Eagle who is in bed with Reading, PA mayor Tom McMahon to advance a corporate welfare community of slaves funded by taxpayer dollars with Albert Boscov controling the purse strings.” by GMW. Which was a personal attack on me since I am neither a ‘political operative’, or an ‘employee of the Reading Eagle’, nor have I ever even met the mayor of Reading or Al Boscov let alone spend any time in bed with either of them. As the administrator of the berksblog net maybe you should censure or GMW for attempting to tie my username to Dana Hoffman? Is that not a violation in it’s own right? I think so.

If there are any Wiki Admins reading this, I would also ask that the unsigned individual above be blocked for suggesting another threat of legal action, which is strictly forbidden on this site.

In short, your claims that this was all started by me is totally and unequivocally false. If anything, it was begun by the individual back on November 18th. Finally, I consider this matter closed and will comment no further on it. Any future additions to this page on the subject will be removed immediately and those commenting will be reported to the Wiki admins for mediation or otherwise. Thank you for your cooperation, and good day.And the truth shall set you free! 20:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it again, kindly. This discussion ends here. But before I go, I offer you the information below for your consideration as to when the opening salvo began in what has obviously become a crusade of many to blame me for the start of all of this.

Click the below link to view a time at which the individual who I had believed to be GMW accused me of being an individual I am not and posted an IP address to go along with it. Note that this occured in June of 2006, 4 months prior to any time that I suggested that he and GMW were one and the same:

http://mheckman.berksblognet.com/2006/06/30/reading-eaglemayor-mcmahon-propaganda-machine-exposed/

While this did not occur here on the Wiki, it was the opening salvo from Mr. Heckman which would give me adequate reason to believe that it may have been he who accused me of working for the Reading Eagle.

Finally, I doubt any court in this country would find adequate reason to ask the Wiki to cough up my IP address because I incorrectly stated that Mr. Heckman was the same person as GMW or that the IP address attributed to GMW was Mr. Heckmans unless A.) the IP address is in fact Mr. Heckman's, B.) I made a direct threat against Mr. Heckman, C.) I had posted comments from his site without giving proper reference (it is not a copyright violation if you give proper citation), or D.) the courts have decided to through out the US Constitution which guarantees me and others the Freedom of Speech which would allow me to state my opinion. Mr. Heckman knows he already has my IP addressAnd the truth shall set you free! 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]