User talk:Jsg2020

Welcome...

Hello, Jsg2020, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! S. Rich (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-insurgency[edit]

JSG, your contributions to COIN are appreciated. But the materials is better discussed in articles devoted to police procedures or crime prevention. Here is some guidance in this regard: WP:TOPIC. The COIN article is focused on military styled warfare, and should remain so. I do encourage you to develop the domestic police style of COIN, but we need to move it to the appropriate article. At that point we can set up a WP:SEEALSO link in the "See also" section of COIN. The link we provide will have a short description of what the police TTP is all about. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made the changes you specified. Jsg2020 (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done.--S. Rich (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Service Award[edit]

You are now entitled to display this award on your User page:

--S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!

Jsg2020 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI vice copyright problem[edit]

Hello Jsg2020. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article C3 policing, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Jsg2020, I've posted COI and copyright banners on the C3 page and explained the posting on the talk page. If you are connected with the C3P program, you should declare your connection. I'm here to assist. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SRich-

While I am a member of the MSP SPT, I am not the creator of C3 Policing. The MSP SPT is not a business, it is a unit on the Mass State Police. I can't really have a conflict of interest, as I am stating facts about a government agency. The information that was added later was added (I believe) by instructors at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and not by me.

It is not an advertisement; I don't know what I would gain from advertising for a state agency.

Exactly what is copyrighted that I am supposed to be using?

Jsg2020 (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of MSP SPT, you have WP:COI. (COI can include government interests. I'm retired US Army, so I have COI WRT Army topics. Even so, I strive to maintain WP:NPOV.)

It really helps to declare COI. I suggest you add something like this to your userpage:

"I'm Trooper X [last name] with the MSP SPT. With WP:COI#Declaring_an_interest in mind, I declare I'm here to contribute information and edits that will improve the quality of C3 policing and other police work Wikipedia articles. I am aware of WP:PG and I abide by them. [Then sign with the 4 ~'s ]"

Lighthouse Technology is featured in the article and they have a commercial interest. As the tone of the article is promotional the advertising tag is appropriate.

I see you added the photo of the multi-agency team. From the documentation of the photo, it says you took it. But the photo is also used on Mike Cutone's webpage, which is copyrighted. If Cutone owns the copyright, then his permission is needed. If you own the copyright, then Cutone should say he's used the photo with your permission. (I am not an authority on these issues, so that's why I used the "not sure" copyright tag.)

(Finally, as a talk page clarity issue, please use colons [:] to indent the next input of our talk. E.g., you would use double colons [::] in your response.)

--S. Rich (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Lighthouse Technologies" is not a company. It is a program used for research by the NPS for possible use ::by Special Forces troops in the field. It is being tested on the civilian and military sides. There is no ::commercial interest.

It is not an advertisement for anyone, any more than the MSP page is an advertisement for the MSP.

Jsg2020 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jsg2020, for the explanation on Lighthouse. The use of the term "Lighthouse Technology" needs WP:DEVELOPing in the article to make clear what it really is. (It had been wikified, but the wikis redirected to Lighthouse.) I've tagged the term "Clarification needed."

In that Cutone is a major driver in C3P, and because he has his business interest in the program, the advertising banner should stay. Also, such banners are appropriate when the language of the article is promotional. (For more info, see WP:WEASEL.) And banners/tags serve to alert other editors to come on in and give their best efforts at cleaning up articles. (E.g., there are pages containing lists of pages with such banners/tags.)

My comments to you are simply personal helps with your editing efforts. Think of me as an old NCO (which I was) who wants his troops to do well. I came across the article because it was mentioned in the COIN article, which I have an interest in. My old CA unit was designated FID/UW.--S. Rich (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, Mike Cutone is a State Trooper. He has no business interest. C3 Policing is a methodology ::being tested but it is not "sold" for money etc. The website is MSP sanctioned as a vehicle to get the ::word to other PD's as well as further the mission with the "friendlies" in the area. Think of it as Psy ::Ops or the function of a unit "Information Officer".

Jsg2020 (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When he says "All C3 Policing materials and methods are the intellectual property of Michael M. Cutone. All materials and methods with C3 Policing are copyright with US Copyright Office." he is asserting his ownership interest over C3P and by implication he says others may not use the material without his permission. (Evidently C3P is not a method which was developed by MSP.) If he is adding "his" intellectual property to WP, then he's engaging in WP:OR. Moreover, WP:NOTPROMOTION says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion." and this is not limited to commercial efforts.--S. Rich (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line: what do you recommend that I take out so we can stop this back and forth. C3 policing is a valid medthodology being used by several agencies with no compensation paid to Tpr Cutone or the MSP. I just want to have a fair and accurate overview of the program on Wikipedia. Please advise.Jsg2020 (talk)

Editor notes[edit]

It is considered good practice to leave editor notes for the different changes you make. For example, why did you remove "(Green Berets)" and "National Guard" from the description of 19th SFG? I know your edits are in good faith, but I ask that you explain them. Sometimes they can be extremely minor, like correcting ~~tpyos~~ typos. So in those edits you check the minor box and say "typo" or "sp" or "comma" in the editors note. When adding material with substance, you've got to give us a Reliable Source. When you make such changes, the WP:BURDEN in on the editor making the changes and the editor's note serves that purpose. (In my case, with all the edits I've done, I can justify my different changes in different articles with short comments like "tweak" or "ce" for copy edit.) In any event, you will learn and I encourage you to keep up the good work! --S. Rich (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Srich32977. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to C3 policing seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. You are letting your COI interfere with good Wikipedia editing. When it comes to editing here, Wikipedia comes first and promoting C3 or the MSP comes last. S. Rich (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counts[edit]

Come on, JSG, I've done 35,000+ edits to Wikipedia. Doesn't that indicate I know what I'm doing? You've done 79. Don'tcha think you've got a lot to learn?--S. Rich (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just means you are overzealous, bored and power hungry. 35,000 edits don't make you an expert on COIN, the Mass State Police or policing in general. You are out of your depth on these matters but that apparently doesn't stop you from forcing your personal opinions on others. Jsg2020 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It not a question of who is an expert in these matters. (Kilcullen, Peters, Mao, Hammes, etc. are experts -- and they have differing views.) Rather, we, as Wikipedia editors, are concerned with producing a good/better encyclopedia. You can frustrate yourself by derisively dismissing my knowledge and efforts in this regard, or you can objectively assess what the editing issues are and conduct yourself IAW WP guidelines. --S. Rich (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to William B. Evans, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]