User talk:KellyHeyn

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Gscshoyru (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Gscshoyru (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason why your edits are being reverted is because they are turning the page into what looks like advertising -- see WP:ADVERT. If you want to make improvements to the article, please keep it to an encyclopedic tone. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical, you may be blocked from editing. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Gscshoyru (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

STOP!
This is rediculous! I'm updating our government organization page, which hasn't been touched in over a year! There is no advertising on the page. I am simply taking off the information that has not been approved for public release. Please allow me to finish my job!KellyHeyn (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)KellyHeyn


 * The entire "Who we are" section that you're adding is written in the first person, as opposed to the third person -- and as such sounds very much like advertising -- and also sounds like you copied it directly off of the website's page... which you did, if I look at http://peoc3t.army.mil/c3t/who-we-are.php . This is a violation of WP:COPYVIO in addition to WP:ADVERT, so please rewrite the things you're trying to add so that they're not copied directly off of the site, and have a WP:NPOV, before re-adding them. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gscshoyru (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your latest change to the page: still contains content directly copied off of an external site, is still written in the first person (the pronoun "We") and still sounds like advertising. Fix it, please. This is your last last  warning... Gscshoyru (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is publically approved material. The site I am taking it from is an official government site. If I reword it any other way it needs to be restaffed for release. Please tell me what I can say? Does "About PEOC3T" work? You keep taking away full edits without even reading it. What is curretnly on the site is wrong. It has to come from that website because that's the wording that has been approved for release. I'm trying my hardest to follow your "rules" but you don't exactly say what is allowed and what is not. You just take it down! Is there a number I can call to prevent this from happening. Do you have some sort of help desk? If this isn't the case, I will have to remove all of this material off of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyHeyn (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am certainly reading your edits. They're not my rules -- they're Wikipedia's rules. You're not allowed to copy/paste content from other pages unless the content is available under a specific creative commons license or something compatible -- see WP:COPYVIO and WP:C. Even if they are available under those licenses, you really shouldn't copy/paste from other places anyways -- see WP:COPYPASTE. Content should be written in your own words -- for an analogy, if you put the content you're adding in a paper for a college class, then a professor should not be able to accuse you of plagiarism -- if she can, then you're copying, which you're not supposed to do. Additionally, articles should be written in third person, not first person, so they sound more encyclopedic -- see WP:TONE. Finally... your "restaffed for release" line makes me think... are you a member of this organization in any way? If so, that's a conflict of interest -- see WP:COI -- and you really shouldn't be editing the article anyways. Does all of this make sense to you? I really think your edits have all been in good faith, even if they violate lots of policies, and don't want to see you blocked because of all this. Gscshoyru (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, stop! You've been doing this again, both on Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical and on Project Manager Battle Command. You've been adding copyrighted text, which as I have previously explained, is against wikipedia policy -- see WP:COPYVIO, and you have a connection to the organizations discussed in the articles, which is a violation of WP:COI. Please stop adding the copyrighted text, at the very least. And if you're an editor with a conflict of interest, you need to discuss edits on the talkpages before you do them. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to reiterate what Gscshoyru has said. Copying content directly from other websites isn't going to work.  Aside from the copyright issue, the content is not written in an encyclopedic tone and quite obviously promotes its subject.  You must stop reverting this contents removal.  If you have questions, please feel free to ask me or post them at Help desk. -- Daniel  15:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you know -- I've added a report at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard about the two pages you've edited, and several others that seem to be related. The report is here, so comment there if you wish to discuss this. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tactical Battle Command


A tag has been placed on Tactical Battle Command requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gscshoyru (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

--Hi, I work in the PEO C3T public affairs office. As far as copyright infringement, the information was taken from a US Army Web site. All publicly approved information extracted from the government is considered part of the public domain, so there are no copyright restrictions that can be imposed by the owner of the Web site. Is there anything we can do to the article from an attribution standpoint, so that we can disclose that the info was provided by the US Army to address your point about a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple1567 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)