User talk:FortBraggAirborne

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to 95th Civil Affairs Brigade (United States) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. — Ed! (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That post was very neutral and non biased and based on fact and truth. Please tell me what is wrong with it. -FortBraggAirborne
 * I have reverted your edits again. You make some pretty substantially slanderous claims against the brigade. You'll need reliable sources cited to this info, as in some published historian or book instead of what is clearly a lot of opinion. Get this before adding the info or else it will be reverted again. — Ed! (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how is it opinion if it ACTUALLY HAPPENED. THAT IS FACT!!!! How about I put my contacts up there, oh, and when that book comes out, I CAN USE THAT AS A REFERENCE!
 * As of now if you have nothing published or reliable to base the work on, we can't include it here. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies. I have placed this dispute on the Administrator's noticeboard and asked someone else to come in and mediate from here on. Thanks, — Ed! (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OKay, I will show them my verifiability, from my paperwork of being attached to the 91st CA BN. Like it or not, I have a right to post that up here. Sorry. MISTER NEVER BEEN IN THE ARMY think you control a WIKIPEDIA Page, oh youre so cool

Advice
There are a few things you need to take a look at here


 * 1) WP:VERIFY - all information needs to be cited to a reliable source - a quality newspaper (New York Times or similar, not The National Enquirer) or a television news or documentary item on a decent sized network (not public access) or a book published by a reputable publisher with a reputable author, or anything that meets the same quality criteria.


 * 1) WP:BLP - when including information about real people, which includes a military formation, it's men, NCOs and officers we MUST have good quality sources for the information. We have very strong policies about including negative information about real people as it can seriously affect their lives - it has to be relevant, impeccably sourced and not out of proportion.


 * 1) WP:OR - we can't accept original research. Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor is it ever a "first publisher" - all our information is taken from other sources, we are a tertiary source. Your observations might well be true, but we've got no way of verifying whether you are telling the truth or are someone making up stories - we cannot tell through the internet, hence we don't allow original research.

To put it military terms it's like the quality of military intelligence. Good quality intelligence would be something like reports from commanders and agents in the field with proven records of diligence, competence and objectivity. In military intelligence terms from our perspective you are a random civilian saying "There's a whole enemy army coming this way!" - no military formation would act on this intelligence without getting confirmation from a reliable source. In this wikipedia is the same - reliable sources are a must.

I hope this helps explain the reasons why we can't accept what you are putting in the article as gospel. Exxolon (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Then can I write an article, as I seen in other wikipedia pages, and if you ask where I will supply plenty. I will type something with a categorie saying Corruption OR Inside Stories. Then I will reference to look under "External links". Witch "Ed!" has websites listed that aren't falling under your requirements.

Oh and sorry, Intelligence comes from the smallest level of a BN. They user Soldiers like me on patrols to gather "Intelligence." I find it funny how you are a "Civilian" telling me how the military works.


 * Of course you can write an article, though given the tone and content of your previous edits you might want to take a look at WP:POINT and WP:POVFORK first. If your article meets our content policies, which require that it's about a notable subject that isn't already covered, that the content is reliably sourced and verifiable, and that it's neutrally written so we can't tell what the author's opinion is, it will be welcome. If not it will be deleted via one of our deletion processes. We enforce these policies especially strictly where content concerns living people. This is because of the damage that can be caused by ill-considered material - not only to the article subject but also to the editors who wrote it. Even using a pseudonym you are not as anonymous as you might think and are personally responsible for any content you add. Wikipedia is a very public website and it doesn't take long on Google to find cases where editors have ended up in trouble for stuff they've written here (for example, see, and ).
 * Incidentally, one doesn't have to be a soldier to know how the military works. Any reasonably-well educated person can find out - the only difference is that they may not experience it first-hand. Because Wikipedia doesn't rely on first-hand knowledge, as Ed and Exxolon have explained, anyone who can find things out can contribute here. All we ask is that they back up what they write by providing decent sources. EyeSerene talk 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)