User talk:Robertocarlo

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The information about COUSPP was removed as it contained malicious links and much of the information posted is factually incorrect. The creator of the entry included malicious links! Finally, as a founding member of COUSPP the entry was posted without permission from COUSPP or any member constituent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertocarlo (talk • contribs)

May 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. ''If you blank this page again you will be in violation of WP:3RR and will be reported at teh appropriate admin noticeboard. Wikipedia artciles do not need permission from their subjects. If you wish to complain about the page please do so at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents'' Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In the COUSPP article there are malicious links against Bishop Tom Bodkin's name to an article in the Brighton Argus. I have been asked by Bishop Tom to remove the links but to no avail? As one of the signatories to the London Agreement there are also a number of factual errors which should be corrected and again I am prevented from doing this? Wikepedia is not a licence to defame or persecute individuals, as in the case of Bishop Bodkin, and thus I have every right to see erroneous links and comments are removed. I will indeed be making a formal complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertocarlo (talk • contribs)

These "Bishop" Bodkin external articles contained on the Argus website are both factual and historical. They are in no way defaming or persecuting this "Bishop". You are also the author of the website entitled "The ecumenical society of saint augustine of canterbury" which collaborates the COUSPP articles itself. you are invalidating your own website. please cease tampering with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanner03 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Published newspaper articles are WP:reliable sources. If someone considers them libellous then they need to approach the newspaper concerned.  As you are admitting WP:Conflict of interest, then you shoudl not be editing the article.  If you wish to contact an admin, you can do so via WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as mentioned above. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed a number of links from the article which were irrelevant in the context where they appeared and do not appear to have been significant sources for the article. They may still be used for the article however if they are used as appropriate sources per the salient guidelines. Does that settle your objections with regards to removal of malicious links? The factual errors problem should be handled differently than has been however. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You have removed links to external reliable sources namely the ecumenical society of saint augustine of canterbury. These should be included as they clarify what the couspp article is saying. revert the links to Ecumenical Society of Saint Augustine of Canterbury —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanner03 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing links which as you say were "irrelevant" and frankly distressing to a man (Bishop Bodkin) whose wife has only days ago been admitted to a Hospice and is in the final stages of terminal cancer having been given days to live. Drawing attention to Bishop Bodkin's past indiscretion at this particular time is unforgivable and the person who provided the links should feel thoroughly ashamed. Thank you once again.

Formal conflict-of-interest warning
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, 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 or creating 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; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)