User talk:CPT Rooster
Welcome![edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page New York Guard, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:
- Copying text from other sources
- Policy on copyright
- Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
- Policy and guideline on non-free content
If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
September 2023[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at New York Guard, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Content needs secondary sourcing to prove its noteworthiness. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop editing the page. I am currently the G1 for the NYG, I am working with the NYS DMNA current and past historians, and am also working with DMNA PAO OIC. CPT Rooster (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- In that case, please read WP:DISCLOSE and act accordingly. What you are doing is beneficial only to your own organization, not for the reader of Wikipedia. Content needs to be noteworthy and relevant, and verified by secondary sources, which are independent of the subject--clearly that is NOT the case here, since you keep adding material that, if it is sourced at all, is sourced to organizational documents. That cannot be. But first of all, please declare your conflict of interest properly. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- What needs to be disclosed and how are internal documents tracked by the organization in question not reliable sources? There are no opinions and the historical information was sourced from the only authority capable of providing the information. By undoing the edits, you are in fact adding erroneous information that is both outdated and not properly sourced. You even deleted links to news articles from less than a year ago, and are blanketing the entire page because of a supposed benefit? We are a government entity that is trying to document history that has long been ignored. These reversions are counterproductive to presenting an accurate history of the organization. Keep your disclaimer but at least allow us to have factual data on the page. We do not have professionals editing the page, but volunteers who are unfamiliar with coding and the inner working of this site. CPT Rooster (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Restore the newspaper articles: it's that simple--without the pages and pages of organizational stuff you also inserted. But you are utterly wrong: no, internal documents are not valid here. Look at Wikipedia:Five pillars. First, we are an encyclopedia--not a webhost for an organization to disseminate their internal documents and mission statements. Second, we are written from a neutral point of view, and of course your internal documents are NOT neutral (which is different than correct). I don't think you really understand what an encyclopedia is--and you STILL have not properly declared your conflict of interest. You really have two options here: you continue to pretend that Wikipedia is a webhost where you can dump your organization's internal documents and then you get blocked, or you declare your COI and you edit as neutrally as you can with the best and most neutral sources possible. Continuing in this fashion is not an option. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, as an encyclopedia where a summary of what secondary sources say about a topic; primary sources only play a fairly minor role here. Graham87 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Restore the newspaper articles: it's that simple--without the pages and pages of organizational stuff you also inserted. But you are utterly wrong: no, internal documents are not valid here. Look at Wikipedia:Five pillars. First, we are an encyclopedia--not a webhost for an organization to disseminate their internal documents and mission statements. Second, we are written from a neutral point of view, and of course your internal documents are NOT neutral (which is different than correct). I don't think you really understand what an encyclopedia is--and you STILL have not properly declared your conflict of interest. You really have two options here: you continue to pretend that Wikipedia is a webhost where you can dump your organization's internal documents and then you get blocked, or you declare your COI and you edit as neutrally as you can with the best and most neutral sources possible. Continuing in this fashion is not an option. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- What needs to be disclosed and how are internal documents tracked by the organization in question not reliable sources? There are no opinions and the historical information was sourced from the only authority capable of providing the information. By undoing the edits, you are in fact adding erroneous information that is both outdated and not properly sourced. You even deleted links to news articles from less than a year ago, and are blanketing the entire page because of a supposed benefit? We are a government entity that is trying to document history that has long been ignored. These reversions are counterproductive to presenting an accurate history of the organization. Keep your disclaimer but at least allow us to have factual data on the page. We do not have professionals editing the page, but volunteers who are unfamiliar with coding and the inner working of this site. CPT Rooster (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- In that case, please read WP:DISCLOSE and act accordingly. What you are doing is beneficial only to your own organization, not for the reader of Wikipedia. Content needs to be noteworthy and relevant, and verified by secondary sources, which are independent of the subject--clearly that is NOT the case here, since you keep adding material that, if it is sourced at all, is sourced to organizational documents. That cannot be. But first of all, please declare your conflict of interest properly. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)