User talk:Fastballjohnd

This is really John D'Acquisto isn't it? wow good to hear you're doing well glad those punks got what they deserved, good stuff getting that degree, take it easy KatoABJV (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John D'Acquisto

If what you placed on this page is true, then you need to find another story, or failing that an online source for the court papers, so that you can cite it within the article. I only removed some information that wasn't in the linked story, which is the only reference listed in the article. If in fact this actually is Mr. D'Acquisto, then I obviously defer to your more direct knowledge of your case, but it still needs a source to confirm it. I'd be glad to help with finding what I can for you. -Dewelar (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The court documents are from the actual court case and my sentencing memorandum. Bonifide court documents. United States District Court Southern District of California CR NO.98cr1703 K

Try www.WestLaw court document CR NO.98cr1703 K and add the date and the name and yes this is John D'Acquisto and yes I know my case better than anybody and that court document is factual and I would say very true because that is what happened and the court agreed with it. Court documents are better than anything from a news paper....Just to let you know that the information that was in the articles is not correct. Just because you got it from a newspaper that doesn't make it right and they make corrections all the time and this is one of them. If you can't put the correct information and only bits and pieces then you are not following what you told me to follow.

Just letting you know

Hello, Fastballjohnd. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

This matter was brought[1] to the appropriate Wikipedia board....William 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fastballjohnd for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.

June 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 02:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fastballjohnd. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

I am John D'Acquisto and the only account I know about is fastballjohnd the others are fakes and you can destoy them if you so choose. You say the reason for me being block is that "Hello, Fastballjohnd. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject." How can I have a conflict of interest when I know what happened first hand in my case and that is why I am asking to be unblock and place my court document. See everytime I put the court documents up that have proven my innocence either you take them down or someone puts up something else..Look this happened 18 years ago if you can't put anything up that shows a positive outlook then don't put anything up at all..Censorship in the United States is not allowed when I am presenting actual court memorandums from my case with my attorney signature on the document you will not gety any more real than that...

First of all a Check User was done on this account and JohnD34. They came back as a confirmed match.[2] The IP 98.167.164.178 made an edit[3] that in part bore a strong resemblance to an edit done by this account[4]. The people who investigate sockpuppetry had a strong basis for the actions they took.

Your court documents are inaccessible. For instance this one[5] if clicked on gets the message- You need permission to access this item. The only reliable sources available to me and other editors are the ones reporting you were sentenced to prison. Those doubting Thomases among us might also ask- If you were exonerated, why was it never reported in the media? You might mention a 2011 newspaper article but I was in touch with that journalist. He said the information about you being exonerated came from you....William 15:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fastballjohnd for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Yes it is John D'Acquisto just looking to put the correct information up and making this an issue is wrong because if anybody knows the facts about this case it is me. There is no reason to block me on my own story or historical background. If you choose too that is your choice not mine