User talk:129.62.211.2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Francis J. Beckwith has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Alexfusco5 02:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Francis J. Beckwith, 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 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;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't know what the "rules" are. But it seems to me that correcting the man's title, degrees, and former academic appointments, which are well known and on his university server CV, seems like the right thing to do. Beckwith has not been in church-state since May 2007; he has had full-time faculty appointments at UNLV and Princeton; the Baptist Standard article from which the WIki bio quotes is full of defenses of BEckwith, none of which are quoted. The person that needs to be concerned about NPO are the hacks that put this stuff in the first place. So, read the references that were placed next to the changes and look and see whether they are accurate. Don't dismiss them based on some procedural quip. When you do that you, you are essentially saying that truth doesn't matter.

Beckwith has a long history of editing his own page -- so when an anonymous editor with a Baylor IP comes in and tries to source a whole lot of stuff to his Baylor bio (which is itself against wikipedia policy, as sources independent of the subject are preferred), people will tend to get suspicious. HrafnTalkStalk 02:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)