User talk:SOTGMichael

Welcome!

Hello, SOTGMichael, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the delta force vandalism

I filed a vandalism report for the user:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

Hopefully they will block the IP for a little while. DouglasCalvert (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

You comments here were beyond unnecessary, they were plain rude and juvenile. They betray you as the teen-aged GI-Joe-wanna-be that you claim you are. Just what is your purpose here anyway? It's certainly not to help grow the project in a collegial and co-operative way. Perhaps you should actually read the Wikipedia:Five pillars you keep posted at the top of your very own talk page, espescially WP:CIVIL. It covers things like using profanity as an insult and then further insulting people you don't even know by calling them "uneducated".

As for the Special Mission Unit page, quite frankly... it's a mess. And since you have made more than a dozen edits to the page in the last seven months (more than any other user), you are largely responsible for this mess. Perhaps you haven't noticed the HUGE banner splashed across the top of the page that states;

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. (July 2011)

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (July 2011)

This article lacks historical information on the subject. (July 2011)

This article has no lead section. (July 2011)

This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2011)

I mean, it's only been there for more than 2 years! It seems than when anybody tries to improve the page, you revert them (even resorting to an edit war, which is prohibited here) and then, do you improve the page yourself? No, you leave it in the same mess. (Perhaps you should have a look at WP:OWN as well.) As for my edits, I have been trying to clarify the references to "...one of the four Tier One Special Mission Units..." found in the lead of articles like DEVGRU and 1st SFOD-D. Well, that was the purpose of my edit. Yes, I haven't cited it all thoroughly yet, hence the reason I left the edit summary "work in progress", so as to advise this was not OR. You don't agree with it? fine - fix it! But actually fix it, instead of just reverting to stamp your mark of ignorance on it. And when reverting, try to act like a mature adult. - thewolfchild 18:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was a mess before i started on there, i only took out a few units thats are not Special Mission Units and did a few fixes here and there, but as far as your edits, Green berets, Navy SEALs and Marines SOF are not by any means SMUs not all U.S SOF units are SMUs please do your research and discuss on the talk page of the article before editing. SOTGMichael (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're wrong. Any one of those SOF units can be paired up with Devgru or Delta in a supporting role as a second tier special mission unit. Unfortunately, it wasn't until after my edit I realized I couldn't use my source. I then tried finding, but in the meantime, you came along and so childishly reverted it. Which I could have had you blocked for by the way. You can preach policy, but can you practice it? You still haven't acknowledged your crass and boorish behavior. I know you're still just a 19 year old kid, but at some point, you need to grow up, take responsibility for actions and admit when you're wrong. You claim you want to join spec ops, but you're going to need a lot more maturity than you have now. Good Luck. - thewolfchild 02:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but you dont know what your on about, i dont know why your still going on about it but if your feelings are hurt maybe you should grow up and find another topic to work on. Also ive already been accepted for cdo selection from the pre board, just waiting for a slot, i know im only 19 but i came from a military background, you dont know me so shut up and leave. SOTGMichael (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... yeah. Thanks for proving me right. Anyways, I'm glad you "got accepted", I'm sure the world will be a much better place, once you have access to guns and grenades. I will comment no further, but to say if you edit with those kind of insults and language again, you will be blocked, hopefully banned. As for "leaving you alone", don't worry, with your attitude I'm sure you will have no problem, being left alone. Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 05:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMU

I have attempted to start a discussion to help clarify and verify the content of the Special Mission Unit page. You are invited to contribute if you feel you can be civil. - thewolfchild 19:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SASR article

Hi, Thanks for adding material from Mark Donaldson's book, but could you please add references to the book as you're doing this? Information on how to best cite material is at WP:CITE if you're unfamiliar with the templates, etc. I was leafing through the book the other day and noticed that he confirmed that SASR personnel had been deployed to Iraq in 2005 to rescue Douglas Wood (engineer) - when this was reported in the SMH following the rescue the government denied the story. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gday SOTGMichael. From someone also currently serving some free advice (up to you whether you take it of cse): on Wikipedia it doesn't really matter what you know to be true (either through personal experience, operational service, corporate knowledge or word of mouth) but what is available in reliable sources as defined by the community (and those that are open and available for verification). This might be frustrating but it is the yardstick which must be applied in our contributions. If you have a source pls by all means make the edit (and state the source), but if not I'd just walk away and leave it even if it means the article is inaccurate (its also a good way of avoiding any issues with OPSEC, something which I'm sure both of us can agree has to be paramount). As it stands Nick's revert seems appropriate as it is supported by a source that is considered "reliable" (even if you and I know the media is often anything but). All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SASR does have very different rules then the rest of the ADF but the SASR did not allow women into combat roles, SOCOMD now does allow women to attempt the barrier, but before this year women were NOT allowed to join SASR as combat soldiers, the SASR work with the ASIS in a rocky at best relationship and ASIS does have females maybe they are the females the media were referring to, If 4 Sqn does exist and due to number of operators in the regiment as of 2014, it probably does but is very new, it wouldnt be a special squadron it would be just another sabre squadron with its own priority, the SASR page is so inaccurate and im trying my best to give it more credibility but the only way to prove my edits is with media articles and books but the SASR have a gentlemans agreement not to write books unless for example being a VC recipient or something along those lines and giving most of the money to the SAS trust, the media is very unreliable with SOCOMD matters, 90% of the story is inaccurate, defence only gives the media 10-20% of the story. I'll do the references tommorow if I can get around to it..SOTGMichael (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I asked in September that you provide reliable sources to support your contention that the NZSAS "dont have the same DNA" as the Australian SAS (which is dubious given their long history of working together) and that the units are not comparable. I think that the onus is on you here to provide sources given the the ready availability of sources which describe the long history of joint Australian-NZ SAS operations in South East Asia and the Middle East. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, there are no sources, its all in facts, do your research on NZSAS and SASR compare their capability, selection, training, operational technique and tactics etc, and you'll find they are more similar to the 2nd Commando Regiment, NZSAS are not as high trained as the SASR, and do not operate like them since at least 2001, if you have read Mark Donaldson's book you'll find he mentions that SASR have broken away from being a recon unit, NZSAS and SASR used to work with eachother yes but no longer, Im pretty sure they havent trained with eachother in years, SASR broke away from the unofficial limited partnership soon after Aghanistan started, and i think they worked sometimes with the SASR in Iraq but for a very short time, NZSAS though New Zealands premier unit is more similar to the 2nd Commando Regiment, for example NZSAS is a direct role option, meaning they recruit from the street, SASR have higher requirements, maturity, infantry job performance/RAInfIET performance and most importantly have a much higher capability compared to the NZSAS, I could go on and on. I will not allow NZSAS to be added to the similar units page, and will remove it when added,I have nothing agaisnt NZSAS but they are not similar anymore. SOTGMichael (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, to be frank, your personal analysis and views are not useful as the basis for developing articles. Wikipedia operates on the basis of what's in reliable sources, and not the say-so of individual editors. If you can't provide references to support your position then you should not be taking it here as this is an attempt to develop an encyclopaedia and not a discussion forum or your personal website. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Mike. Can you explain your reversion and what you mean by saying that the SASR has moved away from the "long range penetration" role? I note the comment about or Mark Donaldson above. Is he saying that they are now primarily an offensive/raiding force? Grant | Talk 12:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Grant, Sorry I think I may have confused myself abit I thought you said long range patrol, my mistake, they have not moved away from long range penetration but its just a capability, they take pride in being one of, if not the best at it, but the SASR has moved into a more versitile force since operations in Afghanistan began in 2001, from Vietnam - 2001 they were considered more of a long range patrol/recon force and had a very high reputation for doing it very well, but like I said and Mark Donaldson said in his book The Crossroad, the SASR has moved on and has been focusing on every aspect of special operations, since Afghanistan began, the SASR has evolved into a new force. the SASR page is already very unaccurate and very outdated as of 2014, I reversed your work for 2 reasons 1. The current content was more accuare and 2. because I got confused, but I think my first reason was sound enough for its removal, if you disagree please say so and we can further discuss, long range penetration is a TTP or tool of the SASR but not a role. SOTGMichael (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]