User talk:Bahamut0013/Unit representatives

Some comments
This looks pretty good to me. I have a few comments though:
 * "However, they cannot allow violations of policy and guidelines to happen, and if you are responsible, you will be held accountable for your actions." - this is rather unfriendly and should be toned down. Something like 'It is expected that all editors will work within Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines.' would work.
 * "Don't get too specific; all you really should offer is rank, name, and unit, and per the privacy policy, you aren't required to offer any information, personal or not, that you aren't comfortable offering, and common sense says that you shouldn't "out" yourself" - this is contradictory and seems unreasonable. Editors aren't expected to post their actual names (this is generally mildly discouraged), and posting name, rank and unit is clearly 'outing' yourself in a very obvious way. This kind of information is also easily enough to figure out where the person lives (as military units have home bases which they spend most, if not all, of their time at). I'd suggest asking only that the editor post their position (eg, 'public affairs officer of the Icelandic Army's 999th Airborne Brigade').
 * "You should never try to speak for anyone other than yourself (i.e. for your military or for your government)" - this is unclear. If a government employee is editing Wikipedia in their official role, then they're speaking for the government in a limited way. Government employees don't need to be told that they shouldn't exceed their responsibilities or use their official position to further their personal views - this is drummed into them from day one.
 * "Your edits on the topic you have a COI with must be impeccable and completely in line with policy and guidelines, or they will be reverted." - this is rather harsh, especially for guidance aimed at new editors. If the material is useful, but biased (for example), it's more likely to be edited to be more neutral than be removed outright. No editors are expected to be "impeccable and completely in line with policy and guidelines" at all times - this is certainly something to strive for, but it's unrealistic.
 * "and certainly don't try to cite anything that is classified; while this may be acceptable for Wikipedia, it will surely get you into trouble with your command!" - this is unnecessary; people in the military and other government employees are well aware of how to handle classified material and don't need to be warned about it. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)