As the first step in dispute resolution, I commend you and thank for opening a dialogue here. You are wrong in that my nomination for deletion is related to my ban from the site and your saying so violats WP:AGF. That said, you cannot revert fully sourced edits as vandalism. If you cannot agree to that much, I will be taking this case to the next level of official dispute resolution., a request for comment. Requests for comments. Given your adversarial tone, may I suggest we proceed directly to the official dispute resolution apparatus, or are you prepared to recognize my declared good faith in editing the article? My impression is that new editors to Wikipedia are unclear on what counts as "notable" and how an encyclopedia article should be formed. These standards have been formed by consensus here and are certainly nothing arbitrary on my part, nor to be taken personally. These standards also take some getting used to, so no hard feelings on my end - I'm certainly glad to help editors like yourself get a handle on the site, as the entire project benefits from increased constructive participation. Did you have a specific objection about my edits that we can discuss?
Incidentally, my editing the article does not change my stance or opinion that army.ca fails to meet the notability requirements and should be deleted. Bear in mind that if the article stays, it will not be edited only by fans of the site, but by any Wikipedia users who can present information of relevance to the article. Bear in mind what WP:VAIN says.
Unintended Consequences.
A word of caution. Before you write a vanity article on yourself, your group, or your company, remember that, once the article is created, you have no more right or ability to delete it than does any other editor.
More than one user has created a vanity article, only to find that, in the normal course of research, other Wikipedia editors have found new material that presents the subject in a less-than-flattering light. Generally, such material will be added to the article, providing it is verifiably true and noteworthy — to the chagrin of the original creator.
So, before you create a vanity article, you might want to ask yourself if there is anything publicly available in your past history or that of your group or company that you would not want included in the article — because such material will probably find its way into the article eventually.
I am not suggesting army.ca is a vanity article, but these caveats certainly apply.
In any event, my reasons (whatever they may be) for nominating the article for deletion have no bearing on the facts of the case or the way they have been presented.
I'll also point out that my recent edits have also included positive ones.
Look, the basic idea here (assuming the article survives the AfD nomination) is to present an encyclopedic, balanced, informative article. If we work together, we can make that article as good as it possibly can be. Revert-wars will not accomplish that. The site has been mis-represented here as an "official" forum for the Army (which it is not) and as being highly recognized by the media (which it is not). If we're going to do this, let's do it correctly and in line with the format reached by consensus by thousands of WP editors. I've been an editor here quite some time now and feel I have as much a stake in WP as anyone else.
Again, thanks for the discussion and I appreciate your views as an obvious fan of army.ca. I agree that army.ca offers the internet community a lot of positive things unavailable anywhere else. But it is certainly not as notable as the site itself and its most vocal proponents would make it out to be. Both points of view need to be reflected in this article in order for Wikipedia to maintain its credibility.
I hope you can agree on that. Looking forward to working with you further.
