User talk:Cceb perm sec

Welcome to Wikipedia; I'd like to guide you through our procedures

Hi there, I'm glad to see your organization take an interest here. I very much welcome your input here!

However, as a paid employee of the organization covered by the Combined Communications-Electronics Board article, you're not really supposed to edit it directly. Just as with the Pentagon's UCMJ, we have our own set of rules and code of ethics here, and such edits are contrary to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. Instead of editing the article directly, you can instead create a new topic (one for each major topic you want to change or discuss) on the Talk:Combined Communications-Electronics Board page, where we volunteer Wikipedia editors can discuss them with you and then add them to the actual article.

Also, no one person owns the content of any Wikipedia article (see Wikipedia:Ownership of content), so one can't really administer a page. We have administrators who help enforce the rules and manage conflicts, but this role is nothing like your role in administering the CCEB's public SharePoint portal. There's no one gatekeeper for anything, and almost everything happens by rough consensus. (Even votes for renaming pages are merely guidance to the administrator who will ultimately make the change.)

And whether information is official or not is irrelevant; Wikipedia works by requiring that all content be verifiable. When needed, this is done with in-line citations that generate end-notes. One related item is that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources, because it indicates the topic is noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia. For some topics, however, this complicates things, since for radio communications, the authoritative source actually (and usually legally) defines the operating procedures. Articles that rely only on primary sources get flagged as such and may eventually (or quickly) get deleted. So when you're suggesting additional content or changes, it would be very helpful if you could point the editors to sources that are other than CCEB and the Pentagon.

Even though you're not really supposed to be editing that page, all of the content you removed was unreferenced (my bad; I added it without the citation because it was a weak one, and pasted just a bit too much, grabbing some bad content in the process). So I couldn't really complain about that part, because you were following the rules about content without citations. As a result, I have spent the past few weeks tracking down more reliable sources for the list of documents you removed, and for each of the edits, tried to provide an edit summary that you would find useful in understanding how Wikipedia works.

In the process of making those changes, I wound up finding material to create several new pages you might find relevant:

Lastly, I'd like to thank the CCEB for their efforts, and in particular their willingness to provide a fair amount of the procedures to the public. I've been an Amateur radio operator since 2003, and got frustrated enough with the varied and often poor radio procedures the hobby has promulgated, and set out to collect all the best procedures in one document. The result is below, and I could not have done this without the extensive work of the CCB and CCEB:

Radiotelephony procedure

Please let me know how I can help your efforts to get the right content about the CCEB presented here.PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 00:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which content is incorrect?

In your last edit to Combined Communications-Electronics Board, you deleted an entire table, where every single row had a citation which linked to a document supporting its existence, name, and often other details. Can you please tell me which parts of that table are incorrect?PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 04:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CCEB officially supports only those ACPs as listed on APAN

The ACPs listed on APAN, including the specific editions and changes, are the only publications the CCEB are responsible for. Any additional items not listed on APAN should not be included. Unofficial sources of information should not be relied on regardless of how authoratative they appear. The most common mistake made with the previous table is the inclusion of NATO ACPs, which are related but not directly associated with the CCEB.

Ahh! Thanks! I was unaware that NATO also published ACPs, and that explains why I was confused by one ACP number that had two drastically different titles (though perhaps not in this table). I've taken the table you deleted, and turned it into a stand-alone article, then added a column for "Developer" and marked all the ones I was sure are CCEB-developed as such. Can you please list on the Talk:Allied Communications Publications page which documents you are sure are NATO, and which you are sure are CCEB? And can you tell me more about the differences between the NATO and CCEB ACPs? I'd like to flesh out the new article, to alleviate your concerns.

Also, can you point me to any references for the sections of the CCEB article marked as "citation needed" that aren't behind a registration wall?PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 03:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been updated again to reflect authoratative information. I will not update the ACP list at this time and leave it for a future edit, once changes have settled.