User talk:Exsap

SAF Guards are elite. Prove me wrong.

I’m a Guardsman, let me try to explain to you why they are elite so you understand. Firstly 1GDS and 3 GDS can do the same job, it’s not that one only does air assault and one only does seaborne like the 101st and Marines do. Both units (1GDS AND 3GDS) train in and do both air assault and beachhead assaults. Which one they do happens to be whatever the mission requires. 1GDS can operate like the USMC if required and 3GDS can conduct air assault like 101st. Basically 1 Guards can conduct an Air assault today and conduct an amphibious assault the next day. There is no specialty between the units. (1Gds doesn’t only do air assault, 3GDS don’t only do amphibious assult.) If the mission calls for it, 3GDS can conduct an air assault operation and 1GDS can do an amphibious one. I don’t know where you’re getting your information but it’s just straight up WRONG. They are nicknamed the “Singapore Marines” as they are the closest thing Singapore has to the USMC, as they’re the only amphibious infantry unit in the SAF. No other other unit does beachhead assaults like the USMC in the Singapore Army. They have done exercises where they storm a beach and capture it before moving on into helicopters to the next objective immediately following and doing an air assault to capture on the enemy base all in the same day. As for why they are elite, it’s because in the entirely of the Singapore Armed Forces there are only 3 officially designated “elite” units, being Guards and Commandos and Divers. One example of this is that they are the only 3 units that are subjected to a higher standard of Gold for IPPT. Normal units get Gold for IPPT if you score 85 points and above but getting 85 points in Guards only gets you Silver. You need to get above 90 points in IPPT to get Gold. If you to the Singapore Army website and read the history it clearly states that Guards was formed from a need of an CONVENTIONAL ELITE force specialising in rapid deployment as the CDOs and Divers are Special Forces. So there’s a need for a unit like Guards to be a tougher, more elite unit. Seriously where are you getting your information? As they are not equivalent to the US 101st OR Marines. Marines do not specialise in air assaults and The 101st do not specialise in, and are in fact unable to conduct amphibious assaults while Guards are specialised to do both. These are they only 2 ways they get to the battlefield compared to the other units who in fact HAS the ability to band together to become a bigger force. It is precisely this distinction and the fact that they are the expeditionary force (tip of the spear, first on the ground or what have you) that makes them elite compared to the rest of the army.

If you really need a comparison then you can think of them as a watered down version of the US’s 75th Ranger Regiment, which are also rapid deployment infantry deployed en mass into enemy territory, except the Rangers are special ops capable while GDS is purely a conventional army unit. Their role is unique in the SAF’s “conventional” forces as they are the Army’s only purely offensive unit, arriving first either by sea or air to capture an enemy’s base without backup. Unlike the Infantry regiment that attacks or defends depending on what’s needed. After capturing a base they move on, leaving the regular infantry to hold and defend it when they catch up. They have armour and tanks to support them while Guards don’t. The other 2 “elite” forces in the SAF do special forces stuff like infiltration and whatnot while Guards are basically the best of the “normal” army units.

It’s ironic what you said about “armchair warriors” when you’re clearly one yourself. Who gave you the idea that our joint military exercises have the other country thinking that we’re “18 year old kids and it’s like working with Boy Scouts”? Guards regularly DO work with foreign militaries and I can assure you from first hand experience with the USMC that they do not think that way of us. Perhaps that might have been their thoughts when we first meet but it ALWAYS quickly changes to respect when they get impressed at how young we are and how our training is more intense than theirs as we need to cram basically an entire careers worth of warfighting skills within 2 years so we move at a much faster pace than them training wise. They’ve always told us that they don’t do that much in 2 years after their AIT while we’re constantly doing exercises and trainings at a crazy pace. If you’ve ever served in the Army as a combatant be it Infantry, armour or Commandos you’ll know that we ALWAYS work with foreign militaries at least once during our exercises and you’ll realise how much of an acceleration our pace is in comparison. Usually they’re amazed that we’re able to keep up with them during joint trainings and that these “18 year old Boy Scouts” can even WIN during our “friendly”USMC VS GUARDS “who’s the better unit” battles against each other and believe it or not, they HATE losing since they’re representing the US and their unit as a whole. It’s shocking to them that we’re conscripts forced to do this and that a big chunk of us don’t even want to be here in the first place. Whereas they had volunteered willingly to join. This is Wikipedia, it’s a place for the objective truth not your personal opinions and the truth is that every country has units they designate as “elite” whether or not you think they deserve it. (The “Elite” Russian VDVs got decimated in Ukraine, yet they’re still considered to be Russia’s elite). Why else are Guards required to have a higher IPPT score for Gold compared to other units? Same with the Commandos and Naval divers. Whatever score you got in a regular unit might get you a gold IPPT but in Guards that same score only gets you a silver. So if SAF says Guards are elite, they are elite. Feel free to prove me wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Sidious SG (talk • contribs) 15:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I could not reply sooner my account was suspended for 90 days by some Wikipedia guru, for correcting embellishments and some non truths.

The Singapore Guards-

1. Elite - No (This is a recruiting tool used by MINDEF to get NS to join ADF and Volunteering for overseas service)
2. Guards are Singapore's Marines and comparable to USMC - No (It state on MINDEF website for Guards they do Coastal hook /Landing operations the SAF have not got the capabilities or resources to conduct, opposed amphibious operations.
3. Guards conversion course, there is no difference from other light Infantry training from most other countries, We all do rappelling and move around in Helicopters and swim in the ocean ( and not a calm strait) as well as doing 30 km marches with full combat loads and disembark from Navy Landing craft , BUT we do not claim to be like the USMC

Also only C Coy of 1st Battalion Guards trains in Coastal Landing operations and receives training from USMC and It is the USMC who calls the Singapore Guards, " a bunch 18 Year Boy Scouts" due to amount of Boy Scout badges all over your DPUs, so if you have any complaints take it up with your friends in the USMC, There your friends ? Exsap (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who’s giving you these false information? “Only C coy of 1 Gds trains with the USMC” ??

1:The entirety of 1 Gds train with them, I know because I was there. And if you want proof, go YouTube Singapore Guards and USMC. The entire battalion trains together. You, someone who’s never been in a combat unit in your life is telling the people who have actually been there what is what? You’re actually telling a Guardsman who has experienced this firsthand that he’s wrong about everything he went through. I have no words.

2: As for elite being a recruiting tool for ADF, again what in the hell are you talking about? Who’s giving you this information? MINDEF needs and wants manpower in almost every unit, they’re not calling unit elite. And fyi ADF doesn’t have a lack of manpower as anyone that signs on Guards or Infantry has to do a mandatory 2 year tour with ADF. You really have no idea what you’re even talking about and making assumptions.

3: Coastal hook and landing is our term for amphibious assaults btw so what are you even talking about. They are literally the same thing. Amphibious assaults/ coastal hook is simply landing on a beach on a fast craft. Done with US Marines together as well.

4: I suppose you’ve gone through GCC and what other countries light infantry units go through to know huh?

5: and let me guess, you know how the US Marines are thinking because you’ve met them, and trained with them? And you can somehow read their mind because they’re way to polite to ever say these kind of things.

Seriously man, stop making stuff up, you have not been there, you have not experienced it, you don’t even know anyone who has been in Guards judging from the nonsense you’re spewing. So you’re the last person on earth qualified do any edits in regards to Guards. They were elite long before ADF was even a thing and were created with having a conventional non special forces elite unit in mind. Something the SAF was lacking back in the 70s. Look, I’m sorry you weren’t posted into a combat unit and you’re salty that Guards have a beret backing and tab (once more if you read the history of Guards that’s was to differentiate them from the regular Infantry back before they got their own beret. Winston Choo himself accorded them Elite status.) and all the accolades while you spent your NS kicking rocks, but leave these to the people who have actually been there and done that and know what they’re talking about. Darth Sidious SG (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Darth Sidious SG: Exsap literally got themselves indeffed for inadequate sourcing stacked with sockpuppetry. Surely you don't want to be the next Exsap. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

(refer to WP:V and WP:SOCK for more information) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I was just trying to correct this person for literally spewing blantanly false information and thought you were him. Apologies, but I’m new to all this and these terms like Sockpuppetry and whatnot I literally just learned. I only started this chat because he kept giving false information and I wanted to prove him wrong. Apologies if I went too far but this is my one and only account. Darth Sidious SG (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Darth Sidious SG

Don't be sorry and cow tail to this Chimp- Whyiseverythingalreadyused,

just look at the Guards Page its a big false and inaccurate mess of Whyiseverythingalreadyused, careless and indifferent edits

Whyiseverythingalreadyused will be Indefinitely suspended from accessing Wikipedia soon, with all the Edit Wars he is engaged in, Robertski is giving him enough rope and he will hang himself, this Goose will be cooked. Exsap (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Whyiseverythingalreadyused,

What are talking about? I am still editing, I just do not waste time with the Guards page because of childish individuals like yourself who like to embellish the Facts and have a tantrum when they are challenged and go running to the Supreme Editor of Wikipedia,

And just look at the Guards Page its a big false and inaccurate mess of Whyiseverythingalreadyused, careless and indifferent edits

Just Keep me out of you Discussions or you will be Indefinitely suspended from accessing Wikipedia, yourself - Chimp Exsap (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

You want to lose talk page access is it? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

. Exsap (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Whyiseverythingalreadyused

Giraffer is not interested in your Childish Rubbish, Just Keep me out of you Discussions or you will be Indefinitely suspended from accessing Wikipedia, Exsap (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Darth Sidious SG

On your Talk Page SAF Guards are elite. Prove me wrong.

Why is none of your first hand Knowledge, not on the Singapore Guards Wikipedia Page, Is it because of the interference and indifference of Whyiseverythingalreadyused ? Please through your Guards contacts get some information on the Guards Facebook page and use this as your verified source. Do not let Whyiseverythingalreadyused stand in the way of the Facts, just look at the Guards page it is nealy 20 Years out of date, and its also a mess with the heading all over the place thanks to the Goose. Exsap (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Exsap, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Exsap! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Australian and New Zealand Reconnaissance units

Hi there, you maybe a new editor or simply a new account of an experienced editor, I think we need to define what reconnaissance means i.e. does it include surveillance or not. If that's a negative, all surveillance units of the world, would probably need a new list page then or the reconnaissance page could be renamed to properly include it. In my view, that page should cover any sub-unit/unit that has to do with reconnaissance, whether special forces or not. I'm not the only person to blame for that page being a mess with unsourced stuff etc, including the edits I did ages ago. I only came back to editing, because I wanted to start fresh, without fear of the admins. —Darth Tomotron (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply Exsap. That definition seems great, though there's also another problem, the meanings of reconnaissance and surveillance seem to be close to each other, with very small differences. I think we need to rename the page to "List of reconnaissance and surveillance units" (since the surveillance units don't really have a place to go), change the description accordingly and attempt to cite the stuff. That could also allow most of the stuff to stay as is. Kind regards —Darth Tomotron (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Explosive Removal and Destruction Service (EOD) (Belgium) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Explosive Removal and Destruction Service (EOD) (Belgium), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~ Amkgp ✉ 06:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Explosive Removal and Destruction Service (EOD) (Belgium) (June 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was:

This has problematic close paraphrasing from this source. Please read WP:PARAPHRASE and rewrite to eliminate close paraphrasing, then resubmit.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service (EOD) (Belgium) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service (EOD) (Belgium), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Exsap (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I have started with a clean sheet and have resubmitted my submission

regards

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces) (June 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Exsap, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content protocols, and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• How to write a great article
• The perfect article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Explosive Removal and Destruction Service (June 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 15:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 12:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces) (June 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

Please look at all the red error messages. Please solve those. I have not reviewed past seeing those

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces). Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 06:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

New message from Timtrent

Hello, Exsap. You have new messages at Timtrent's talk page.
Message added 06:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fiddle Faddle 06:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces) (July 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Zoozaz1 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

As of now, you have only 1 reference in the article. I see that you deleted some of your previous references. Every statement in the article (except the lead) needs to be proven by a reliable source. Furthermore, there need to be enough references to prove notability, which is defined as "significant coverage in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Paracommando Qualifcation (Belgium Armed Forces), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) (July 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There is also an article in article space in Wikipedia on this subject. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. The article has malformed references.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Explosive Removal and Destruction Service (July 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Zoozaz1 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please add references to the article; even if you know the information to be true, we need reliable secondary sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces)

The article Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There are no sources that prove notability, as discussed in the draft submission. None are independent of the subject and this should be worked on through the AFC process before it becomes an article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) (August 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jagers te Paard (ISTAR) Battalion (Belgium) has been accepted

Jagers te Paard (ISTAR) Battalion (Belgium), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle Faddle 10:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Explosive Removal and Destruction Service (October 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nightenbelle was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Everything in the article must be linked to a source. You don't have to have 3-4 sources after every sentence- but one source per section is not sufficient either.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nightenbelle (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SL93 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SL93 (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Para Commandos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambodian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Explosive Removal and Destruction Service (February 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gobonobo was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This article has not changed significantly since the last time it was nominated. Issues about sourcing raised by previous reviewers have not been addressed.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

gobonobo ^{+ c} 09:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces)

Hello, Exsap. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Explosive Removal and Destruction Service (July 9)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Chess was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: You didn't even try to improve the article since the last submission.

Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) (July 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bogger was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

No change in article/notability since last submission

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bogger (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) (December 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Delta fiver was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

No change since the last submission, all an editor did was resubmit without any changes. To the next reviewer, this draft has been rejected 8 times now.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Paracommando Qualification (Belgium Armed Forces), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 11:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Explosive Removal and Destruction Service

Hello, Exsap. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Explosive Removal and Destruction Service".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

July 2025

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Please only use this account or edit only while logged out. You are doing both in the same articles at present, which is confusing and could be seen as violation of the policy linked above. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Edits such as the one you are making require references to reliable sources to be included. You added a big block of unsourced, poorly formatted text. Please do not do so again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Contradicting your viewpoint and reverting your unencyclopedic wall of text is not trolling. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Exsap 3RR violation after warning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  voorts (talk/contributions) 15:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

January 2026

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps, you may be blocked from editing. Reliable sources are required. Full stop. Zinnober9 (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Exsap returned to disruptive editing post-block. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for adding unsourced content and marking major edits as minor, as you did at Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Miniapolis 00:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on my talk page. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – robertsky (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: Blocked generally for disruptive editing, edit warring, making personal attacks over Guards (Singapore Army). – robertsky (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Guards (Singapore Army). Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Whyiseverythingalreadyused,

I did not make a personal attack, I mean who are you?

You may be blocked for making false claims against contributors to Wikipedia,

Please do not embellish aspects of the Singapore Guards on Wikipedia, a lot of the referencing being use does not link to sites or is 20 years out of date (2007 and 2014) or is a individuals private and unverified views on Youtube,

Kind Regards

Editor SEA Exsap (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You are the one promoting unverified information. I have no relation to the Guards; take back what you said or I will get you blocked. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 10:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Whyiseverythingalreadyused,

o.k. Exsap (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Whyiseverythingalreadyused, check the SAF Guards Official website and stop reverting myself and other editors contributions and deleing there citations and adding citations for embellished Youtube sources, incorrectly comparing the Guards to 101st Airborne Division and USMC, It clearly states in the SAF Guards website they have Heliborne (Airmobile) and Coastal Hook (Landing) capabilities also the Guards are a agile light Infantry force and have Light Infantry Companies along with a Light Strike Company (Recon / AT / MG ) as per there organization template.

And just because there are Home made and customized Badges and patches available, with things on them saying "ELITE GUARD" does not give you the right to place on Wikipedia that the SAF Guards are elite, Other Countries and non Singaporean commentors can put Elite when referring to capabilities of other's military, but you never see Elite SAS , Elite Delta Force, Elite Navy SEALs on any Wikipedia pages,

And Further, there is no reason you need to box in, 7 Singapore Infantry Brigade it is useless and unnecessary information. and does not meet with Wikipedia template criteria.

OK Exsap (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

. Whyiseverythingalreadyused

You have a darn hide accusing other Wikipedia contributors of vandalism, How dare you- look at mischief you have committed with subjects and topics you clearly have no knowledge about.

3 or 4 other contributors have had to go in and undo, clean up or resurrected Wikipedia article you have interfered with.

Please keep your mouse of the Edit key,or you will be blocked from editing without further warning Exsap (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

August 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Guards (Singapore Army)) for making repeated unsourced/wrongly sourced edits despite multiple warnings and advice to the point that is disruptive.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page. Alternatively, add the following text directly to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – robertsky (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear robertsky,

I have not made unsourced / wrongly sourced edits, I have used the Wikipedia's commons Photo Gallery, Guided by other Wikipedia contributors ,SAF own Facebook pages and Videos, as well as IA to source Facts , ie the SAF has a Photo of a light strike vehicle, exclusive for use by the Guards, Light Strike Company, on that vehicle it can be seen its armament, how can you say that's unsourced, SAF has Three sources of Enlistment NSFS ( / NSFS Mono intake) , Specialists and Officers. how can you have enlistees and not include NSFS, its like there is no NSFS

My last edit was cited, and Whyiseverythingalreadyused has Vandalized it I request you undo his Vandalizim

Kind regards

E

. Exsap (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Objectively, your edits have thus far failed to meet the minimum expectations of having properly sourced edits. In your latest edit on the article, you used an promotional video that has no voiceover, fully music only, and crucially captioned as a video about 8SIR that was established in 2010, not about the old 8SIR that was under Guards! This 8SIR is under the 2PDF. Such elementary mistake would not have been made by someone who is an expert about Singapore military.

Any further such edits in a similar vein may see that you are fully blocked from this project. There is only so much rope one can give. Military related topics may be inaccurate at times due to certain amount of secrecy or avoidance of discussion in the public realm, and we can only write what others have written in reliable, third part sources. I suggest that you focus on a topic that relies less on original research and personal opinions. – robertsky (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of army units called "guards". Diff of problematic edit is 1367972538; rationale for warning can be found in my reversion of that edit. Robertsky, I believe they're already WP:NOTHERE. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Justanothersgwikieditor. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of army units called "guards" have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. While this is a first level warning, note that this is not your first misleading edit summary. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  Giraffer (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I have you socking as Accourt1 to get around your partial block, so it has been upped to indefinite. You can appeal if you wish, but past (and any future) socking is going to make that considerably harder. Giraffer (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Usage of sources

Hi, I understand your frustrations but you need to understand your sources and what it means. Absence of information does not means it does not exist. We only know that it does not appear. Using the media release, you noticed that 2 Guards does not appear and assumed that it does not exist anymore. This will be WP:synthesis of information. All the SIBs did not appear in the list so do they not exist anymore? How about HQ Guards? The absence of the units only indicated that they did not take part in the parade and nothing more.

Your edit summary said Added SAF Fact sheet for LSV and you have added just the header of the document. You need to provide more information about the document instead of just the header. As the editor adding the information, you need to provide reasonably basic information so other editors and readers can verify your sources. Elisapoly failed to find the article probably due to geological difference while I am able to find it here. If you have provided the information in the first place, a lot of misunderstandings can be avoided. In fact, if you click on to Light Strike Vehicle, you can find the official release here though you need to read via its archive here instead. The links show the same document in a different format, pdf and a website. Arguably you have failed to prove anything as I have to prove your points for you.

Please do not approach Wikipedia editing with a siege mentality as we are all here to build a better Wikipedia. As robertsky had said, you had failed to meet the minimum expectations of having properly sourced edits and resorting to WP:sockpuppetry does not help your case as of. Do take a break off from Wikipedia and if you still wish to edit Wikipedia, you can still appeal for an unblock after six months and read WP:NEWBIE before making your next edit again. ~ JASWE (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

For what's its worth, WP:Standard offer applies. – robertsky (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

August 2026

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined, leading to the posting of this notice.

Giraffer (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)