User talk:ChaplainSvendsen

Can I just say that comments like this are not what Wikipedia is built on. We are a collaborative effort, with people working together as a team to agree to article content. No single person owns an article and the idea is to edit and build consensus on the talk page in the event of disagreements. Promising wars will not achieve your objective; you'll just end up blocked from editing. Please try to work with others on this one - A l is o n  ☺ 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well just what am I supposed to do when repeatedly false statements concerning WHINSEC are presented as facts. I've presented a great deal of evidence to support my statements. And the article is clearly in violation of your own guidelines. WHINSEC is not SOA and to make statements which are accusations against SOA and then make those statements against WHINSEC is simply dishonest. So let's talk and discuss it all. I havn't heard anything back on the many dialogue discussion items I've already presented. I am glad to see that finally, at least for now, the SOA logo is no longer the lead of the article as if SOA and WHINSEC are exactly the same thing. For one thing, in the five years plus I've been investigating and traveling to the school the evolution of the school in that time is significant. Not only is SOA not WHINSEC but even WHINSEC has transformed and continues to redefine itself in more positive and constructive ways since its beginnings. For all of those who would argue with me about the school I ask the following questions. How many of you have actually been to the school? How many of you have actually looked at their cirriculum? How many of you have ever actually talked to a student who attended the school? I've done all those things. The time is coming up for the latest fall protest at Ft. Benning. I would like to invite any of you to go to that protest and accept WHINSECs offer to travel to the school, look at their ciriculum, talke to their instructors, and ask questions. I would like to invite any of your to attend the BOV meeting there this fall or the one in Washington DC next June. Both are open to the public and both allow for visitors to speak from the floor concerning the school. (There are guidelines about getting on the agenda, but SOA Watch the last two years in a row have just showed up and were allowed to speak. I'm figuring they had hoped to be not allowed to do so they could claim foul!)ChaplainSvendsen 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''Additionally, promises to continue edit warring are unacceptable. If you persist in holding that position, you will be blocked to prevent disruption.'' Vassyana 19:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing
Verifiability and Reliable sources detail what sources are most reliable and desirable for Wikipedia articles. Neutral point of view explains that articles should reflect the body of such sources. No original research states we cannot put forward views not already published in such sources. If you want to raise specific concerns, you can raise them most appropriately at one of two places:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I hope that helps! Vassyana 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COIN
Please notice that conflict of interest report.--Raphael1 10:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
If a fact has a reference from a reliable source and it is written in a neutral tone, without any attempt to 'slant' the info, it will be fine to add it. If you are having your edits reverted, I suggest that it might be well to edit incrementally, eg: add one fact such as a course which is offered, and nothing more. Provide a reference for the fact -- or multiple references. If such an edit is reverted, it is more easily defensible than a large scale rewrite. Try that, and similar techniques if you are having troubles with what I call 'unstable edits'.

If you have a verifiable fact that is being removed, let me know, and I'll personally look into it. If you need any help finding appropriate policies or want any advice regarding Wikipedia, I'll be glad to help. Good luck. User:Pedant 00:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Email
Responded to your email, possible accidental double post/tech difficulty... I saved the text as a file for now, you may have received it twice, or never.... let me know if it was never and I will resend it. User:Pedant 17:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Conflict of interest this is the guideline in conflict of interest cases... which applies to you when you edit the WHINSEC article, if only because other editors have a perception of a conflict of interest. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has guidelines for editing in the case of such a conflict, and it sums up what I wrote in my email pretty much. I'll resend the email later though, I think it didn't go through. It answers your questions in our running thread re the W-S article. User:Pedant 18:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)