User talk:Rebecca.a.armermann

Army Geospatial Center

Hi Rebecca. Thank you for your interest in this topic. I sense that you may be connected with AGC. In any event, it's important to familiarize oneself with Wikipedia practices before making substantial edits. Key to editing is a neutral point of view. If you are able to identify non-agency sources to substantiate what's reported here, that would be extremely valuable to improve the references in the article. You'll find a variety of citation templates that you can use. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the basis of your reversion and the initial edit regarding USACE. Doing so helps avert an edit war. Sincerely User:HopsonRoad 00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning in changing the US Army Corps of Engineers link is to give the readers the direct source instead talking points about the agency.

Thanks, Rebecca.a.armermann (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, Rebecca. Please note that Wikipedia editorial guidance discourages exterior links in the main body of the article. Therefore it is appropriate to link to United States Army Corps of Engineers. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 16:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reading Wikipedia External links it specifies:

1. Is the site content accessible to the reader? (yes)

2. Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? (yes)

3. Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional? (yes)

Due to the fact that we are a subordanate agency under US Army Corps of Engineers makes the URL change credible. It states in the Official link page that "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site".

Rebecca.a.armermann (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading is correct, but it applies to the material typically linked in the "Outside Links" section, not in the main body of the article. See the section in the intro that says, "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources." If you would like, we can have a Wikipedia guru clarify this for us. User:HopsonRoad 17:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To explain a little better, in Wikipedia we link to what Wikipedia has to say about a subject, not what the subject has to say about itself in order to maintain a neutral point of view. User:HopsonRoad 17:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site". Which makes it a valid neutral site.

Thanks,

Rebecca.a.armermann (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies, Rebecca. I have asked a Wikipedia administrator t offer advice on this. In the meantime, I can point out that the USACE article refers to mthe DOD article and not it's website. User:HopsonRoad 21:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rebecca, I've been asked to offer input here. Firstly, I've been made aware that you may have been using the account AGC-webmaster (talk · contribs)? Just so you're aware, Wikipedia does not permit you to use two accounts like this within one topic area. I see you have used the account editing the Army Geospatial Center article. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're new, but if you carry on using two accounts like this then it's likely that one or more of them could be blocked. The relevent policy here is Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

The other issue here is with the placement of an external link in that article. I haven't checked out the link myself so I have no opinion on whether it is suitable. However if it is included then normally it would be more appropriate to put it at the end of the article with the other links. Be careful here though - if you are associated with the subject of the article then you may have a conflict of interest. Read Wikipedia:Coi#How_to_avoid_COI_edits for advice on what to do in this situation. Tra (Talk) 22:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about the two accounts and I was not planning on using both for AGC. I just started AGC-webmaster to replace the current one I am using at the moment because when the wiki page was found I was tasked by AGC to fix inconsistancies. After this response I will be using the other account for AGC wiki pages only. The link I provided points to the history of the Agency so I do not see that as being a conflict of interest. At any case I fixed it so there should be no more conflicts.

Thanks,

Rebecca.a.armermann (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Handy references for using Wikipedia

Any editor should find the following links helpful: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR; WP:OWN; WP:CON; WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:EQ Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Controversial articles. Here's hoping that you find enjoyment as an editor! User:HopsonRoad 14:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]