User talk:Accuracychaser

Welcome!

Hello, Accuracychaser! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 22:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Updates to Tactical assault group and Commando Selection Training Course[edit]

Gday. I see you have made a few edits to these articles recently, so I assume you are IP 101 who was previously editing 2nd Commando Regiment. These articles are definitely in need of updating yet once again you have added material that is not explicitly supported by the references you have provided. As such once again I have reverted your changes. The details of my concerns are in the edit summaries I provided, but specifically:

the ABC article you cited in the Tactical assault group article says nothing about TAG East nor does it mention its supposed responsibility for "for all Domestic Australian land and maritime areas" so it cannot be used to support the changes you made here; and
the Defence Jobs website link you provided mentions none of the detail you added about the Special Forces Entry Test replacing the Special Forces Screen Test so it cannot be used as a reference for this on the Commando Selection Training Course.

I imagine you are making these changes in good faith because you have some personal knowledge of the subjects in question (which is fairly evident by the detail you have provided) and that the information you are adding likely has some basis in reality; however, this is insufficient. You need to provide sources which verify your changes for these to be accepted. So far the only references you have provided contradict your changes not support them. Of course such topics often suffer from a lack of up to date official information available in the public domain (sometimes due to OPSEC concerns) so if no references exist then we just have to accept the articles reflecting the last available reliable source.

Given the problems with the information you have repeatedly added I ask you to discuss your concerns on the article talk pages in question, outlining what you believe needs to be updated and providing references to support this information. This will allow other editors to discuss the issue. Indeed per WP:BRD once you have been reverted you are required to discuss any changes and achieve consensus before making them again so I hope you are prepared to do this now that you are logged in. Continuing to add incorrect references might well be seen to be disruptive so pls keep that in mind also. Anotherclown (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Commando Selection Training Course for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Commando Selection Training Course is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commando Selection Training Course until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracychaser, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Accuracychaser! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and repeatedly posting material which isn't supported by the citations given, despite concerns being raised about this above and elsewhere. Please take the time to review WP:V, and note that Wikipedia operates on consensus-based editing in which editors are expected to provide sources to support material they add and engage in discussions concerning this material. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Accuracychaser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have continuously updated with relevant references and have sought to include actual information from direct sources, as opposed to biased opinions. I have responded to such biased opinions requesting references or substantiating information direct to Nick-D and as a result he has blocked me, yet has not provided any supporting facts as requested? Accuracychaser (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your description here of the problem is disingenuous. You gave a much better description when you said "I have included a number of updates and edits from first hand information I have, which is often hard to reference with a news article and the like". The problem is that unless you can provide a reliable source, the information should not be included. PhilKnight (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have spot checked the references in response to concerns raised about them. They clearly did not support the material you were attributing to them. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes at Tactical assault group, Commando Selection Training Course and 2nd Commando Regiment (Australia)[edit]

Your repeated changes to these and other articles have been reverted for several reasons which I have explained to you here [1], [2], [3] and [4] as well as in my edit summaries here [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12] (and probably a few others I may have missed). Two other editors have also reverted some of your edits for similar reasons, here [13] and here [14]. I have pointed out to you the requirement to discuss these issues once reverted per the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle (WP:BRD). However, because you have continued to place incorrect references in articles, and have repeatedly undone my and other editors reverts, as well as removing cited material without discussion you have been temporarily blocked by an Administrator.

As I have said to you I agree many of these articles are out of date / incorrect and need to be updated. However, this cannot occur on the basis of your personal knowledge. Per policy only information that is available in published sources should be included in Wikipedia. You must provide references to reliable sources so that the information can be verified (see WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:PROVEIT). When your block expires pls feel free to discuss the issues on the talk pages of the articles concerned, listing the information you believe is incorrect, proposing the change you feel is required and providing a reference which explicitly supports your change. Other editors can then review your proposed changes and can discuss them. If a consensus is reached the change can be made. Failure to do so though will simply result in you being blocked again for longer and the articles probably not being updated.

One final point - many of us, by nature of our past experience, service, or employment etc, have access to a lot of first-hand information and whilst it may be tempting to fix the "errors" we see in Wikipedia on the basis of this I would advise you to resist it unless the information is freely available in the public domain. For obvious reasons there is often very little up to date information about SOCOMD units available in the public domain and ultimately all we can do is use what there is. If current information is not freely available it may be best to remove the out of date information from these articles and replace it with more a generic summary of the information that is available supported by a reference, rather than attempting to include long lists of detailed information that will often change and become out of date without appearing in a media release etc. Anotherclown (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]