User talk:CanadaBeaver

Hi Offshore1,

2007-09-12

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research it says "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source." So my report meets the requirements of Primary sources because it is a first hand knowledge.

There are many ways to verify a report, your method is just one of them but not the only one. You can verify my report by going through a failed TN Visa application at the US Homeland Security office at the Niagara Falls train stop.

TN Visa exists way before the establishment of Homeland Security office in US. May be your personal knowledge of TN rejections is out of date, and the procedures I reported are the current requirements of the US Homeland Security office.

Wikipedia is not a forum for writing competition. Poor writing is not an excuse to suppress a factual report. You can make your contribution by improving the semantics of the report.

Regarding not to report those procedures if they are not in the US government policies, it is like labeling people telling a personal anecdotal when people first reporting American troops were abusing prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay because prisoner abuse is not a US government policy.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.17.140 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

2007-09-10

The five pillars of Wikipedia are 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. 2. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. 3. Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. 4. Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. 5. Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here.

My posting meets all above requirements. My posting is merely reporting the fact. The information I posted is my personal experience and it is the procedure carried out at the US border's office at Niagara Falls.

Your rational of removing my posting is "This is NOT encyclopedic without policy sources". What are your policy sources? Please provide evidence to substantial you claim? Is your policy sources Wikipedia's ploicy? Which Wikipedia's policy has my posting violated, and which part of the posting is the guilty part?

Wikipedia is a place to post factual information that will be beneficial to the readers. The information I posted meets the requirements of Wikipedia. TN Visa applicants need to know what they will encounter after they are denied the TN Visa application at the US border's homeland security office, so they know in advance the impact on their privacy and psychology.

Please give the rational of removing the information I posted. If you do not have a convincing explanation, please let the readers know the information I posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

You have posted a poorly written personal anecdote. It is not a primary or secondary verifiable source report. Policy on, and linked from, the above "does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." If you have a USCIS document that indicates that your experience is official policy and is carried out for everyone, then cite it. Otherwise (and based on my personal knowledge of TN rejections, as I was on a TN and I employ TNs regularly) it does not conform.

Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Offshore1 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)