Kmhseo

Assuming you are a Security Engineering Officer, thanks for your service - I couldn't do my job without you. Specialists perform tasks that are highly skilled and are not easily found in the job market. However, being a specialist does not make you a commissioned Foreign Service Officer. Take pride in being an SEO - it sucks you do not get on the dip list in a lot of countries and nobody should give you shit because you are a specialist. But dont try to take away something that I have through misinformation/distortions. I am a commissioned officer - appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. You are not. You get overtime, I do not. You have limited career advancement potentional, I do not. You have a single purpose POV editing account, I do not. Move on. Try the sounding board, or perhaps that is your posting from today as well. Bevinbell 13:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

==

You are missing the point. According to the Foreign Service Act, the FAM, and the FAH, "Foreign Service Officer" does not exist as an official position in the Department of State. We can talk about Foreign Service officers (uncapitalized) or you can point out a clear, official (FAM/FSA/FAH) distinction between a Generalist and someone like a Security Engineering Officer.

The FSA states that Foreign Service officers are commissioned by the President while Foreign Service specialists are commissioned by the Secretary. There is no conflict or dispute on this matter, which is why your repeated statements about your commission have nothing to do with the issue. The dispute is only about the "Officer" title, which as far as I can tell does not exist in any official documentation (unless, again, you can provide a FAM/FAH reference). Until you produce such a document I am going to undo your edits, which, since you cannot cite official sources, amount to vandalism.Kmhseo (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: If I were a Security Engineering Officer you know perfectly well that I a) would be better paid, b) would have no desire to waste my time doing Generalist work, or c) don't work for Generalists, ever. Ever. Even Ambassadors aren't above DS/State security policy. Flex your eMuscle all you want to by continuously making inaccurate statements about Generalists, Specialists, and the Foreign Service. If you want to compromise, discuss things on the talk page and we can probably work something out- diplomatically. Kmhseo (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of FAM references 3 FAM 3121.1-1 Foreign Service Officer Career Candidates 3 FAM 3121.1-2 Foreign Service Specialist Career Candidate 13 FAM 211.1-1 Foreign Service Officers (Generalists) 13 FAM 211.1-2 Foreign Service Specialists 3 FAH H-2240 Foreign Service Officer Career Candidate Program etc. etc. etc. Bevinbell 06:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

==

You are not even at Post yet, but still in training as an SEO student? And no response to the FAM citations? Bevinbell 03:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is an SEO student? I'm not even an SEO?? Kmhseo (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

==

I gave the FAM references, and yet you still revert mindlessly. Also, why do you think that an SEO makes more than a FSO? Maybe with overtime. Also, once you get the chance to actually work overseas, you will quickly discover that either your rater or reviewer is likely to be a FSO. Bevinbell 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually FSOs get rated and reviewed by RDSEs, RSOs, or at the mid-level by their branch or section Chiefs back in ST.Kmhseo (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You continue to revert, even in the face of citations and facts, without anything to support your edits. You have made no attempt at discussion, ignored messages, make edits that are contrary to FAM and FAH, the Department's own website, and frankly reality to anyone who has worked in the Department. What is your motivation? Why the revert war? Bevinbell 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you even read the Foreign Service Act? Jesus. Kmhseo (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Service Officer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Foreign Service Officer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please take this as a warning before further steps to resolve the dispute. I would like to encourage everyone involved to come to a satisfactory compromise on the content of this article. The edit war is not conducive to creating a balanced article for the public to inform themselves. Kbrose (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to help mediate this issue, have made some modification to the article based on initial review, and would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on Talk:Foreign Service Officer and state your opinion about my conclusions, so I can consider them in another edit if necessary. Kbrose (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)