Talk:Fort Sheridan, Illinois

message: Thanks for contributing the 9 paragraph POV section about the landfill to promote your lawsuit / website. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so I guess that if I look up Fort Sheridan in another encyclopedia the article will also be 1/4 about the history of the base and the remaining portion is 3/4 about a single landfill. Feel free to add more material about the history of the base, the Library of Congress HABS record has 20+ pages of documentation that could be used as source material.  You may want to read it since page 1 describes your guard tower as a 167 foot 90,000 gallon water tower. You could also modify your citations using the guidance at Citation tags. You should also read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The name calling in your edit summary was also not necessary. When I see 9 paragraphs of material sourced by a single website and originally contributed anonymously, I remove it. Anybody can make a website, but having a website doesn't make the information contained there true. Since you've added sources, most of the material can probably stay, but it would be nice to add some pertinent material about the base and its lengthy history and trim the 9 paragraphs down to half it's current size. --Dual Freq 11:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is your point?  My site does not serve ads, does not sell t-shirts, I do ask for donations which has brought in a single contribution of $25.  I have already spent $700 on my current litigation so if you think my agenda is to somehow benefit from directing people curious about the issue to my website then please say it direct.  Your insinuation is that this is somehow impoper.  I maintain the website and post on this issue because I want to promote a clean environment, not because I like having visitors to my site for the sake of itself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.231.170 (talk • contribs).
The point is that this is an encyclopedia. Your additions are not exactly compliant with WP:NPOV and it overweights the article towards your bias. You clearly have an agenda and you are pushing it here. There is nothing wrong with promoting a clean environment on your website, however it is wrong on this website. Please re-read some of wikipedia's policies. An encyclopedia is for facts not agenda pushing, see also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have not removed it because of your previous/current intimidation tactics. --Dual Freq 11:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Landfill controversy

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: I live near the Fort right now and would love for anyone who can to contirbute any ghost sightings or stories they have about the Fort. I unfortunatly have no personal experience to add, only basic knowledge. I think this would add another layer of interest to the article and would be more intriguing for the readers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.137.106 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghost Sightings and Stories

message: Pritzker Military Museum & Library has holdings relevant to helping flesh out this article. Catalog and Digital collections are online.  Please feel free to use them as needed.TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: PMML Holdings Available to Help This Article