User talk:Bwilcutt

Welcome to Wikipedia. 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. 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, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Wikipedia has issues. Reference: See recent news stories of Pedophiles modifying Wiki pages to make them more "accepting" to pedophilism. Also, Xmodem reference credits Byrds with adding Xmodem-CRC when this was actually done by myself back in the same time period.

Deletion

Hi. Just responding from the comments at Helpdesk. If you think an article should not be on Wikipedia, read the instructions at WP:AFD. It is a good idea to read some of the current deletion discussions to get a feel for how the process works before you start nominating. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question covered several people at once along with several topics. I don't think there are articles that violate Wiki's rules as much as that one. It should only take a reader pointing it out to an editor (who hides behind a fake name or not... seriously, how proud are you of Wiki, huh?) to get it cleaned up. It would seem that is not the case. I remain miffed but not surprised.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Wayne Besen. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wayne Besen, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet-- The article was removed due to violation of Wikipedia rules. See the following page for the rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article A valid reason was given for removal of the article several times but other editors kept bringing the article back claiming there is no such rule that I stated. I think I've proven my point on two fronts: a) This article is a violation and b) wikipedia needs professional editors. Thank you. User:bwilcutt

You did not prove your reason, whatever it was. You did not specify what part of the rule you were talking about. Was it that you thought Besen wrote the article about himself? You did not prove that.

I think the article is okay as a Wikipedia biography. The outing of Paulk by Besen is well documented, and the article cites those documents. Paulk's problems that came as a result are not problems Wikipedia can fix certainly not by deleting an article talking about Besen. The damage has already been done. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]