User talk:CognitiveOP

Welcome!

Hello, CognitiveOP!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

It's very important that you understand this:

you shouldn't approve your own stuff. When you're very, very new, there's a good chance that your submissions won't be appropriate. By moving it into mainspace, you've accepted that it can be deleted if need be, instead of sent back for further refining. DS (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much for your response! While new to Wiki, Ive been a published author for many years and an academic even longer! I'm refining it now just to be on the safe side! If you see anything in particular on the page that could be tightened up a little bit, please let me know! Thanks again! CognitiveOP (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Warfare

Thank you for contributing to the article Cognitive Warfare. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. We generally don't accept user-generated content like YouTube videos, and have to be cautious when citing the Washington Times.— ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the input. The only youtube videos are official NATO or Army War College presentations or Congressional, & U.K. Parlimentary hearings. Are they not reputable just because they are videos? Thanks so much for the help! CognitiveOP (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are unreliable because they are self-published sources that lack the traditional indicia of reliability, such as peer review, explanation of methodology, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wikipedia requires sources to be reliable and verifiable, and we highly prefer secondary and tertiary sources, whereas primary sources are often unusable. Typically Youtube as a source is generally considered not acceptable for these reasons. In some very limited exceptions, self-published sources from a widely-recognized expert in their field can be used, though they still aren't preferable when better sources exist -- we should always be using the best available sources. In the case of your article above, huge swathes of it were sourced inappropriately to a single non-expert self-published primary source; and other portions of it sourced to Youtube videos that were either not relevant, or not from experts in the specific field. Additionally, the article had significant other issues -- neutrality problems, major problems with synthesis (combining of two sources to make a third claim not reached by either source), etc. Notably the entire history section was sourced to material that made no mention of cognitive warfare, and was likewise removed. I appreciate the effort, but before you create additional articles or expand this one further, I'd strongly recommend you consider spending time reviewing our core content creation policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:RS. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH), and given your username, which raises some concerns as to whether you have a conflict of interest on this subject, WP:COI. It will save all of us a lot of time. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lectures or research presentations at the Army War College may be reliable sources. However, this requires that the presenter is a recognized expert in their field. (Typically this means a PhD or professorship at a university.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for such a fast reply! Absolutely, I completely understand and agree! The NATO and army war college presentations, while on youtube, are PhDs and top NATO generals. Unfortunately, this is the only place that NATO, U.S. Congress, and war colleges post their presentations (not even on their own websites). I am adding more peer reviewed research to add more credibility! Thanks again! CognitiveOP (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to their paper submissions, ideally for journals, but also for departmental publications (for those employed by a service academy or war college), or for non-journal military publications (such as Armor magazine or Special Warfare Magazine for the Army), or paper submissions to places like Center for Army Lessons Learned (or other service-branch equivalents) those are quite helpful for this type of research. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much for that advise and such a fast response! doing that now! CognitiveOP (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you have any more input, pleaseeeee don't hesitate to drop it here! Concerning my name, this account was only created to make this article (hense 'Cognitive Original Poster [OP]). My field of psychology doesn't necessarily directly intersect with this subject but it does share common themes (none of my work is cited to avoid conflict of interest). I appreciate reading wikipedia articles written and edited by those somewhat versed on a topic, ensuring accuracy. And for this reason, I'm in the midst of making all of these additions and corrections to not only ensure accuracy, but to make it as digestible as possible for all the wikipedians who most likely have no knowledge on the topic.Thanks again for the advise and if you have any more for this article, pleaseeeee put it here! CognitiveOP (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the explanation, thanks. For what it's worth, I think it's not just wikipedians without knowledge that can gain from this article -- as a former intel officer who's worked parallel to, but not directly in, the information warfare field, I've learned things from this article as well which have evolved my thinking on the subject. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello CognitiveOP! The thread you created at the Teahouse, I still dont have MOVE section to make my article live after 4 days and over 10 edits, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]