User talk:Tomotron

Welcome!
Hello, Tomotron, 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

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

List of equipment of the Australian Army
Hello, If you want to add that the Australian Army uses that gun, you need to provide a written reliable source which states it (for instance, a news story or reliable website stating that these guns are used by the Army). Your personal interpretation of photos is not a reliable source. Please stop using photos as sources. Thank you, Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are continuing to make low quality edits to articles on Australian special forces. Please stop this. You don't need to list every single role special operations units undertake, for instance. You are also not providing reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read WP:RS. Websites of fitness organisations are not reliable sources for the roles of Australian military units. More broadly, please do not edit war low quality material back into articles when it has been corrected by other editors. You may be blocked from editing if this continues. Instead, please start discussions on the relevant article's talk pages to help reach consensus on issues. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:ADF flag.gif
I have just deleted File:ADF flag.gif as you uploaded it under a blatantly false claim that it has been released under a Creative Commons license. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and further violations of the rules around copyright will lead to a block. More generally, and to be frank, your editing is largely of a low quality and you are annoying people with this. Please slow down, and take care to get things right. The thread at the top of this page provides links to resources which can help you to settle in, and locations where you can ask questions. I would strongly suggest that you make good use of these resources. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As your edit warring is continuing, I have posted the standard warning for this. Please make sure that you read it carefully, and stop edit warring. Edit warring while claiming that your edits are a "compromise" is considered pretty bad conduct by other editors and admins - you should always use talk pages to negotiate a compromise rather than to try to impose it. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While I'm WP:INVOLVED with you regarding article content, I don't think that I am on issues of copyright, especially when the matter is clear cut. Your decision to upload [[File:Australian Defence Force flag.jpg]] under a totally false statement that the flag is licensed under Creative Commons despite being warned for previously doing exactly this above was not well considered and indicates a deliberate intent to violate copyright. Please take the time to review Wikipedia's copyright policy (linked in the above standard text), and again note that this is taken very seriously. As I have noted elsewhere, you are well on the way to a lengthy-duration, and potentially indefinite-duration, block for disruptive editing. Please slow down, take the time to read Wikipedia's rules, and ask for help when you need it. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to add, if you would like another admin to review this block, please use the unblock procedure in the template above. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Department_of_Environment%2C_Land%2C_Water_and_Planning check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Department_of_Environment%2C_Land%2C_Water_and_Planning?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Turkish Airlines, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qantas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emirates ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Qantas check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Qantas?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Australian and New Zealand Reconnaissance units
Hi Tomotron,

You have listed some Australian and New Zealand units that perform unit (RAR /RNZIR) or Formation (Brigade) Reconnaissance. these units are not purely Reconnaissance units as the Reconnaissance done is purely done for the Tactical picture for the commander of those units, Other units like the RAAF you have listed are surveillance and response and (B Flight) FAC and the RAN unit listed conducts back to beach Reconnaissance prior to amphibious activities conducted by 2 RAR and 2 Cdo Regt.

SASR, NZSAS, RSU are in the ballpark of Reconnaissance units,

Request you amend your contribution to reflect a more accurate reflection of the Australian and New Zealand Reconnaissance units.

Thank you for your contribution,

Kindest Regards

Exsap

Exsap (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Australian and New Zealand Reconnaissance units
Hi Tomotron

This is the Concise definition for Reconnaissance

"Reconnaissance is a mission to obtain information by visual observation or other detection methods, about the activities and resources of an enemy or potential enemy, or about the meteorologic, hydrographic, or geographic characteristics of a particular area.[1] Reconnaissance"

(US Army FM 7-92; Chap. 4)

If a units Primary or Secondary Function(/Mission) is, and it trained and resourced to perform Reconnaissance than it would fit in to Reconnaissance units section.

as for Aust and NZ, - Keep SASR, NZSAS and RSU and remove the rest and maybe making a note that All Australian Army Infantry and Armored Cavalry units do have formation Reconnaissance capabilities. RAAF should be listed with in the ISTAR / Battlefield C4 / Coastal Patrol section, The RAN listed inExsap (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Military Diver units

for example you have not included under South African - 4 Recce Commando or 5 Recce Commando Regt's  you have however correctly placed 44 Pathfinder Coy and incorrectly placed in the 1 Parachute Battalion,

If you like I am happy to assist you with the clean up and make this a more accurate and concise list of units

Kind Regards,

Australian and New Zealand Reconnaissance units
Reconnaissance is more like a fact finding exercise, ( ie Reconnaissance and Intelligence)

whereas Surveillance is more like after you have found the facts you observe and get more facts prior to responding / take action on situation developments (ie Surveillance and Target Acquisition

If you combine the above you have ISTAR, JISTAR, RISTA, or sub forms RSTA, STA, RIS, Recon/Recce, (Keeping) Obs or O.Ps  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exsap (talk • contribs) 09:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)