User talk:Tsalagi

Yo.Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Tobycat 06:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the information because it is classified SECRET under federal law. n-Tsalagi
 * Bullfeathers. The information came from an article published in New Yorker magazine in July 2005. There are also plenty of other articles available on the web. There is nothing secret in the article. Before you trash someone else's work you might want to use Google to see what information is publicly available. --Lee Hunter 14:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Not everything you read in New Yorker or on Google is factual. Most information you get about SERE on the web is either sensitive or just plain wrong. =Tsalagi
 * You have vandalised (i.e. wiped) this article several times. If you do it again you will be reported. Your personal experience with SERE counts as original research and is explicitly not permitted for editing WP articles. Articles are always based on third party sources. Your belief that the information is "sensitive" is interesting, but not relevant. --Lee Hunter 16:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

SERE
Tsalagi, there's another way to pursue your concerns that I think might be better. Lee Hunter has reverted your blanking of the page and is very likely going to continue to do so. His actions are backed by Wikipedia policy and common practice.

What I suggest is that you discuss and fully document your concern on the discussion (talk) page for the article. I notice that the talk page is currently blank. That's where we'd expect to find a discussion about the merit/legality/appropriateness of article content. It's also a place where people can respond and sort through the facts, sifting through what may be true and what is actually true.

Lastly, if you truly believe that the article should be deleted then I encourage you to use the Votes for Deletion process. That's how the community decides whether articles should or should not be here. If articles are deleted, then their entire history goes away as well. As you've seen, blanking a page is merely a temporary action as the page history makes it very simple to restore.

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask. I have no position on whether this article should be retained or not...I just like to see everybody get along and follow process. :-).

Tobycat 16:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I just saw your modifications.  I think what you did was an inventive way to possibly remedy the situation and I hope that the editing conflict between you and LeeHunter resolves with this step.  I still encourage you to document your concerns on the talk page.  If the content is truly illegal to post in the US and you can demonstrate that, then it would be appropriate to nominate the article for deletion.  As it stands now, the content that you find objectionable is still there in the history and anybody can see it by looking at the history tab.  There is no way to remove it unless an administrator does so....which requires a VfD. Tobycat 16:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those links...very interesting stuff! I think it is clear that the intention of the SECRET notice is that the curriculum of the course is secret, but that the content of the website it not.  That puts the website content in the arena of fair use, I believe.  To get rid of the history of an article I suggest you start by posting a concise summary of the issue at Help_desk.  An admin or otherwise experienced person will review and provide advice that's better than I can provide.  When you do this be sure to sign your user name using four tildes in a row like this: ~ .  That automatically inserts your user name and a timestamp along with a link back here.  Lastly, be prepared to explain why the content you wish deleted genuinely is a violation of law.  Just because it is heresay will not qualify it for permanent deletion.  Also, if the sources of the information are major media outlets, then some may argue that it is legitimate to include, perhaps under a section entitled "controversy", since anything released on the news is now public knowledge.  I'm just recommending that you have your argument all buttoned up before presenting it.  To that end you may want to expand on the Talk page just what was improper regarding the prior content.  Those links you put on my page are a good start at establishing the intent of the US government to keep some details secret.  Tobycat 17:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have incorporated your edits into the original article. The existence of the New Yorker article is a fact, the existence of the 20/20 report about sexual abuse and the ensuing lawsuit is a fact. You can argue that the New Yorker got it wrong - for all I know you may be right and in fact our article does not say that the New Yorker article got the facts right. We report what the New Yorker said about SERE. If you can find a legitimate third party source that refutes these claims, feel free to add it. The question of whether your government wants to keep SERE secret is of no interest to me. --Lee Hunter 18:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)