User talk:Kwill46125

Proposed deletion of Decorated Police Detective Ken Williams Blows Whistle on City Civil Rights Violations in Federal complaint
Hello, Kwill46125. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Decorated Police Detective Ken Williams Blows Whistle on City Civil Rights Violations in Federal complaint, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —Swpbtalk 15:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Your article was deleted because it was in many ways inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please read our content guidelines (1, 2, 3) and intro pages (1, 2, 3) before you create another page. Among other things, Wikipedia articles must: Your "article" appeared to violate every single one of these requirements. So before you complain about "censorship", make a little effort to learn about how we do things around here. —Swpbtalk 15:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Consist of completely original material, or contain material that is in the public domain, which most published sources are not
 * 2) Cover a significantly notable topic, meaning coverage in a number of reliable sources
 * 3) Contain references for all assertions, particularly controversial ones
 * 4) Clearly identify the subject of the article in the title and introduction
 * 5) Stick to a neutral point of view, meaning absolute avoidance of opinion, editorialism, or charged language

Reply-- Decorated Police Detective Ken Williams Blows Whistle on City Civil Rights Violations in Federal complaint
1)Consist of completely original material, or contain material that is in the public domain, which most published sources are not Response-- the material is cited in the Federal district court under the two Docket Numbers listed inside the article. That means those are original and are also published.

2)Cover a significantly notable topic, meaning coverage in a number of reliable sources Response-- the topic is discrimination, false claims act and these are probably based on history extremely notable subject matters in law. So I have no idea what you mean by deleting it when there are countless legal references to such matters of law since 1864.

3)Contain references for all assertions, particularly controversial ones Response-- I recite. The material is cited in the Federal district court under the two Docket Numbers listed inside the article. That means those are original and are also published.

4)Clearly identify the subject of the article in the title and introduction Response-- I recite. The material is cited in the Federal district court under the two Docket Numbers listed inside the article. That means those are original and are also published.

5)Stick to a neutral point of view, meaning absolute avoidance of opinion, editorialism, or charged language Response-- the material is cited in the Federal district court under the two Docket Numbers listed inside the article. That means those are original and are also published. This is very neutral because as stated in the article the Federal District court has made rulings as a matter of law regarding those two dockets - one unsealed by the Federl gov't and the other proceeding to trial after a trier of fact in October 2014 (who is the neutral person) Denied the claims to dismiss by defendants.

Again, why are you restricting Free Speech - a fundamental constitutional right since 1776 and the creation of the United States Constitution?

Again, you deleted something that is sitting in the Federal court where 'The People' assemble. It is not dismissed in the Federal courthouse but it is somehow deleted on Wikipedia. That's censorship. What else could define it?Kwill46125 (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't even know where to begin with how wrong all of that is, so let me just point out to you that the 1st Amendment applies only to actions of the federal government. Wikipedia is a private, non-governmental organization, and as such, the 1st Amendment is completely inapplicable. —Swpbtalk 16:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that explains the problem. I thought this was a private company supporting very good first amendment arguments in courts of law as a ref resource for others. I was wrong. My mistake.Kwill46125 (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well,,, you are a private foundation structure that is a public entity based on your filings. I don't like taking someone's word at face value so I took 5 mins to look up your corporate structure. Here is something you need to look at yourself when you throw around the "private" banner when in fact you are a public entity that is tax-exempt.

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects. Together these sites are the fifth most visited web property in the world. The Wikimedia Foundation is a '501(c)(3) tax-exempt' non-profit organization with offices in San Francisco, California, USA. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en#If_I_donate_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation.2C_where_does_my_money_go.3F

The organization grew quickly. In 2006, there were five employees and about $2.7 million in revenue. As of 2012, there were approximately 140 employees and a revenue of about $38 million (mostly from donations). As of 2014, there are approximately 210 employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Foundation#cite_note-2

IRS -- A public charity is prohibited from allowing more than an insubstantial accrual of private benefit to individuals or organizations. This restriction is to ensure that a tax-exempt organization serves a public interest, not a private one. If a private benefit is more than incidental, it could jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4221pc.pdf Kwill46125 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

By you restricting free speech and are a tax-exempt org you are possibly running afoul of your intended purpose.Kwill46125 (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Also consider what you told me earlier in context to it being disingenuous from a constitutional measure when one looks at the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which prohibits any law (you are a public entity not private) abridging freedom of speech. The 16th Amendment gives Congress the power to collect taxes on income. Increasingly, nonprofit organizations are finding themselves giving up some of their rights under the First Amendment in order to obtain or retain exemption from the 16th.

With all that said consider re-posting my article now that you had me doing research for a social good for free. Let me know what you decide. Thanks. Kwill46125 (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC) http://www.claconnect.com/Print.aspx?id=4367Kwill46125 (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you really suppose Wikipedia doesn't have the right to enforce its own quality standards? Or are you just upset that you got called out for not meeting them? —Swpbtalk 17:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well let's stick to the facts in this matter and not pure speculation. You said this was a 'private' entity. I am calling you out on that statement. It is not a private entity. Do you refute what is posted to help you recognize this is a public 501(c) tax-exempt organization... or do you stick with the assertion this is private? I posted links to help you see where the info came from. I am trying to make this as easy as possible. Kwill46125 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that lawsuit. Your unique legal theories aside, I dare you to write an article that follows the rules; that gets kept. It's not hard – all the rules are easy to find. I don't think you can do it. —Swpbtalk 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the support. Trust me it's never easy being David going up against Goliath. That aside what I wrote earlier, respectfully, did follow the rules. See responses above. See courts only advance facts not opinions. Maybe that was lost in my earlier response when I suggested you understand the Judge (a trier) only advances disputed facts towards trial. The judge advanced this dispute towards trial based on the complaint as written in the article. The federal government would have dismissed the FCA if it were baseless after being under seal for two years in the second FCA case. Baseless arguments or weak arguments are dismissed; these two are advancing. Kwill46125 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I take that as an admission of defeat. You don't think you can do it either. Lots of ordinary people do it every day, but you don't think you can. —Swpbtalk 18:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. The article as written is verbatim (excerpt) from a public record filed with a Federal courthouse. You, oddly, want a new or altered public record created despite what has been filed and tested by the Federal Courts as a First ever FCA filing of its kind. Sadly, you obviously do not see the 'social good' value in what has been furnished to the courts; as it has already passed that scrutiny. Kwill46125 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Verbatim copies of public record are also not acceptable as Wikipedia articles. Lots of things, however, are. You already have the resources in hand to work out for yourself what we'll accept here and what we won't. You can make a good article and prove me wrong, if you want. —Swpbtalk 18:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I will abandon this Wiki project. Thanks for discussion but I can't create multiple records regarding the same material.

I'm so surprised. —Swpbtalk 18:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I just figured out how to navigate to your "article" rules page. I see now more clearly the article as titled and written wasn't in compliance with the stated rules. I appreciate your patience while I figured it out.Kwill46125 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)