Recent edit to Clearance Diving Team (RAN)
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you!
Epicgenius (
talk) 13:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Lachlan Quinn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Nick-D ( talk) 10:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You may wish to make yourself aware of this discussion on the list of SF talk page, [Talk:List_of_military_special_forces_units#British_units] related to inclusion of non UKSF elements on the page.
As neither of the two units that you're listing are within UKSF you may want to make a case for their inclusion in that discusion. They're both elements of 1ISTAR Bde and undertake an operational level tasking, rather than strategic.
GhostlyLegend ( talk) 10:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
As 90% of those so called soecial forces on that list are not special forces but special operations forces, including them didn't seem like a problem. Lachlan Quinn ( talk) 10:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
A guy saved by Jesus. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
List of military special forces units without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks. --
A guy saved by Jesus (
talk) 02:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
List of military special forces units with
this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ...
discospinster
talk 03:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nick-D ( talk) 08:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop edit warring now. You will be blocked if it continues. Nick-D ( talk) 10:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference your recent edits at No. 23 Squadron RAAF and Special Air Service Regiment I draw your attention to the following Wikipedia policies:
- When you undo or revert the edits of another user you should not mark your edits as minor - see WP:MINOR (as you did here [1] [2] [3])
- An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period - see WP:3RR (you've done at least 3 on No. 23 Squadron by my count here [4] [5] [6])
- Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed - see WP:V. As material the you have added to both the No. 23 Sqn and SASR articles lacks references it has been removed (while the accuracy of the material you added to the No. 23 Sqn is of cse also disputed per the discussion on the talk page). Pls do not restore this material unless you can provide reliable sources which can be verified.
- The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material - see WP:PROVEIT. In this case that means you.
- Personal knowledge is not considered a reliable source - see WP:RS for what is.
Pls ensure you respect these policies if you are going to continue to edit. There are of cse consequences for not doing so, including being blocked. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced claims to this article. If you are aware of SASR personnel being trained to operate a wide range of weapons beyond those which equip the unit, please provide a citation which supports this rather than edit war it in. Thank you. Nick-D ( talk) 02:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gday again Militaryhistoryguru. Yes by all means pls feel free to help improve the article but information such as this needs to be supported by references. Pls see WP:PROVEIT for the policy. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Special Air Service Regiment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick-D ( talk) 06:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you edit war in this article further you will be blocked from editing. Please read the guidance above, and do your fellow editors and readers the courtesy of providing a reference. Thank you. Nick-D ( talk) 09:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I undid your edit to Special forces of Australia (Clearance divers are not a special forces but a special operations force) and also your edit to the List of military special forces units (Clearance divers are not special forces). There is no definition on Wikipedia of a special forces unit or a special operations force unit that is referenced and more importantly an Australian definition to an Australian reference.
Also, in your edit to List of military special forces units you edited a direct quote from the NATO Glossary of Military Terms changing "special-operations forces" to "special forces". You stated "The difference between special forces and special operations forces. Special forces are specific units and the special operations forces are units that partake in special ops as well as conventional ops.)". You can't edit a direct quote with your view. There is no definition of "special forces" in the NATO terms. You need to provide original material with a reference to support your view. -- Melbguy05 ( talk) 18:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Melbguy05 it is not my view, it is truth genius. Have you met mebers of the defence forces, Aus special forces, Aus SOCOM and CDTs, I have and NONE of them classify CDTs as special forces! -- Militaryhistoryguru ( talk) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Navy does not officially call them special forces. A recent book by Hugh O'Brien in 2014 who was a clearance diver and served in 2nd Commando Regiment in the TAG states his view that they are special forces. A recent book on the history of the branch by former clearance diver officers Jake Linton and Hec Donohue in 2015 uses the words special forces to describe their new capabilities. I note your constant use of the term "special operations forces" (SOF) this is a United States/Canadian term and means "special forces" elsewhere in the world such as Australia. You haven't shown evidence of "SOF" used in Australia for the branch and further that this is used to distinguish the branch from "special forces" units (SOCOMD and No. 4 Squadron CCT). -- Melbguy05 ( talk) 17:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Recent edit to Clearance Diving Team (RAN)
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you!
Epicgenius (
talk) 13:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Lachlan Quinn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Nick-D ( talk) 10:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You may wish to make yourself aware of this discussion on the list of SF talk page, [Talk:List_of_military_special_forces_units#British_units] related to inclusion of non UKSF elements on the page.
As neither of the two units that you're listing are within UKSF you may want to make a case for their inclusion in that discusion. They're both elements of 1ISTAR Bde and undertake an operational level tasking, rather than strategic.
GhostlyLegend ( talk) 10:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
As 90% of those so called soecial forces on that list are not special forces but special operations forces, including them didn't seem like a problem. Lachlan Quinn ( talk) 10:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
A guy saved by Jesus. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
List of military special forces units without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks. --
A guy saved by Jesus (
talk) 02:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
List of military special forces units with
this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ...
discospinster
talk 03:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nick-D ( talk) 08:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop edit warring now. You will be blocked if it continues. Nick-D ( talk) 10:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference your recent edits at No. 23 Squadron RAAF and Special Air Service Regiment I draw your attention to the following Wikipedia policies:
- When you undo or revert the edits of another user you should not mark your edits as minor - see WP:MINOR (as you did here [1] [2] [3])
- An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period - see WP:3RR (you've done at least 3 on No. 23 Squadron by my count here [4] [5] [6])
- Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed - see WP:V. As material the you have added to both the No. 23 Sqn and SASR articles lacks references it has been removed (while the accuracy of the material you added to the No. 23 Sqn is of cse also disputed per the discussion on the talk page). Pls do not restore this material unless you can provide reliable sources which can be verified.
- The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material - see WP:PROVEIT. In this case that means you.
- Personal knowledge is not considered a reliable source - see WP:RS for what is.
Pls ensure you respect these policies if you are going to continue to edit. There are of cse consequences for not doing so, including being blocked. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced claims to this article. If you are aware of SASR personnel being trained to operate a wide range of weapons beyond those which equip the unit, please provide a citation which supports this rather than edit war it in. Thank you. Nick-D ( talk) 02:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gday again Militaryhistoryguru. Yes by all means pls feel free to help improve the article but information such as this needs to be supported by references. Pls see WP:PROVEIT for the policy. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Special Air Service Regiment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick-D ( talk) 06:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you edit war in this article further you will be blocked from editing. Please read the guidance above, and do your fellow editors and readers the courtesy of providing a reference. Thank you. Nick-D ( talk) 09:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I undid your edit to Special forces of Australia (Clearance divers are not a special forces but a special operations force) and also your edit to the List of military special forces units (Clearance divers are not special forces). There is no definition on Wikipedia of a special forces unit or a special operations force unit that is referenced and more importantly an Australian definition to an Australian reference.
Also, in your edit to List of military special forces units you edited a direct quote from the NATO Glossary of Military Terms changing "special-operations forces" to "special forces". You stated "The difference between special forces and special operations forces. Special forces are specific units and the special operations forces are units that partake in special ops as well as conventional ops.)". You can't edit a direct quote with your view. There is no definition of "special forces" in the NATO terms. You need to provide original material with a reference to support your view. -- Melbguy05 ( talk) 18:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Melbguy05 it is not my view, it is truth genius. Have you met mebers of the defence forces, Aus special forces, Aus SOCOM and CDTs, I have and NONE of them classify CDTs as special forces! -- Militaryhistoryguru ( talk) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Navy does not officially call them special forces. A recent book by Hugh O'Brien in 2014 who was a clearance diver and served in 2nd Commando Regiment in the TAG states his view that they are special forces. A recent book on the history of the branch by former clearance diver officers Jake Linton and Hec Donohue in 2015 uses the words special forces to describe their new capabilities. I note your constant use of the term "special operations forces" (SOF) this is a United States/Canadian term and means "special forces" elsewhere in the world such as Australia. You haven't shown evidence of "SOF" used in Australia for the branch and further that this is used to distinguish the branch from "special forces" units (SOCOMD and No. 4 Squadron CCT). -- Melbguy05 ( talk) 17:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)