Jump to content

User talk:MARK S.: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MARK S. (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 59: Line 59:
* 4) "Under its umbrella, Delta is said to consist of three operational — direct action shooting — squadrons, a support squadron, a signal squadron, an aviation platoon, and what is often referred to as the Funny Platoon, believed to be one of the few special operations units allowing female operators among the trigger pullers."-http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swatjester&action=submit
* 4) "Under its umbrella, Delta is said to consist of three operational — direct action shooting — squadrons, a support squadron, a signal squadron, an aviation platoon, and what is often referred to as the Funny Platoon, believed to be one of the few special operations units allowing female operators among the trigger pullers."-http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swatjester&action=submit
Possibly these sources do not meet scientific demands but they are an indication for the "Funny Platoon's existence. ([[User:MARK S.|MARK S.]] 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC))
Possibly these sources do not meet scientific demands but they are an indication for the "Funny Platoon's existence. ([[User:MARK S.|MARK S.]] 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC))
==Classified stuff==
Hey Mark, just browsing through some of your pages, and I didn't find anything specific, but, considering your area of expertise, please make sure you don't place classified information U.S. special forces. Obviously there's no rule against this, other than some respect and courtesy for the armed forces. thanks a bunch.

Revision as of 22:03, 17 October 2006

welcome

Howdy.

Welcome to the english Wikipedia. I have noticed your recent contributions, and would like to help you get up to speed on editing here.

  • First and foremost, be aware of Ignore all Rules. At Wikipedia, many of us are fond of citing "rules" governing how a user should or shouldn't edit. There is always room for your own judgement, however. While we have rules, you are also expected to be bold in your editing. Try to be familiar with these rules, but do not let them get in the way of your contributing.
  • Wikipedia is more or less supported by five pillars. As a guideline, these pillars can help you understand what makes the Wikipedia a useful project for you, for me, and hopefully for the world at large.
  • While I see that you are already on your way to editing pages, there is a guide which may help. In my experience, knowing what templates and categories are out there will help a lot. As an example, if you find yourself editing Hickam Air Force Base, you may notice a couple things:
  • {{Airports of Hawaii}} near the bottom of the article. This inserts a large table allowing the user to navigate to other airports in Hawaii more easily than finding the relevant links. Over time, you'll find that there are quite a few useful templates. Be on the lookout for them in articles.
  • [[Category:Airports in Hawaii]] and others, also at the bottom of the article. Categories help us categorize articles into groups so that we can find other articles like the one we're reading or editing. There are a lot of categories (almost 100,000!), so it may be tough to find useful ones at first. Try looking at articles related to the subject you're working on, and see what categories they are in.
  • Additionally, there are templates like this which will allow you to add data to articles which is highly standardized. This makes reading the Wikipedia much easier. Don't get discouraged if this looks complicated at first, it's really not so hard.
  • For interactive help, you can always ask another user. Doing so is easy. If you were to go to my page, you'd see at the top of the page, a tab for "discussion". Simply click that tab, edit the page, and insert a small header (== Subject of question ==), add your question (typically at the bottom), and save. When somebody leaves a message for a user, the user gets a notification that a message is waiting for them. In general most of us try to reply to messages on our talk pages. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. You may also wish to ask questions at Wikipedia:Boot Camp. Lastly, you can add a {{helpme}} tag to your own user page.
    • Remember, when you leave a message on a talk page or anywhere else, please sign your name with four tildes.
  • With respect to editing and style, please be aware that Wikipedia does have a Manual of Style, and some users treat this very seriously. The most important task is to add information. Closely following that is formatting, collating, and proofreading the information herein. If you aren't so great at spelling or style, you can be sure that somebody will come along and fix it for you. Sometimes these people can be a little harsh when editing, but don't take it personally. We're all on the same team here, and we value your contributions.

Welcome. ... aa:talk 04:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


JSOC vs JFSOC

Hi, Mark. I'm a defense contractor, and I've heard JSOC referred to a lot as "JFSOC". I think. Are these two separate organizations? I don't see any references internal to wikipedia like that. Also, glad to have you aboard, I hope you'll be able to contribute to our admittedly pretty weak special operations content. Let me know if I can help in any way. People here can be kind of cranky, don't take it too hard. ... aa:talk 04:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing

You may want to edit your user page. This helps others know that you're a regular user of the encyclopedia. ... aa:talk 04:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Came across your userpage and wanted to say hello. I saw that you were interested in editing articles on the US military. I realize your specialty is the Navy and SOCOM but I thought I'd throw it out there that we just started the Portal:United States Marine Corps and are looking for all the help we can. Either way, welcome and I'm sure our paths will cross on some article in the future.--Looper5920 11:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries on the edits. I got my hand slapped many times in the beginning. Just part of learning how it works. If you need help with anything let me know and I'll see what I can do.--Looper5920 10:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your edits

Please take a look at WP:EQ, as some of your recent edits have been rather detrimental. For instance, [1] here you revert Looper's infobox migration without discussion, with the editsummary "simply better thats why". Unfortunately, there are other people who disagree with you, and you probably should have discussed it on the talk page first.

Secondly, your comment [2] here was needlessly placed on the talk page. If you have a personal issue with me, the right place to bring it up was on my talk page. You did not need to "spam" it on the article talk too. Further your comments at this diff [3] are non-verifiable, and non-cited, yet you continue to insist that I'm wrong without citing your own (verifiable) sources.

You seem like a decent chap, and you could be a good editor, many of the military articles here need help. But please remember to edit properly in the future when editing those articles. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo!

First please read, what I sent to Loop: "HI Looper5920! Swatyester's statement is ok, but notice that i didn't know the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military unit infobox" and your endaeavors of standardizing all the unit's info-boxes. Actually I must admit, that the new design is better now, because it's shortened and easier to read and the main opposite arguments (it contained too much information better reseved for the main article) are know obsolete in my oppinion. By the way I didn't decidet anything. hope, you answer. (MARK S. 10:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC))"[reply]

Verifiing actual matters officially still classified can obviously not be substantiated by hard(official) sources (as you know). Therefore all the sources I found are iofficial:

  • 1) "The TO (Table of Order) for Delta consists of three operational squadrons, a support squadron, a signal squadron, an aviation platoon, and what is termed the "Funny Platoon". This funny platoon is reported to be the only JSOC unit including female operators."-http://www.specwarnet.com/americas/delta.htm
  • 2) "The Funny Platoon": This is the in-house Intelligence arm of Delta. They grew out of a long-running dispute/rivalry with ISA. They will infiltrate a country ahead of a Delta intervention to gather intelligence. They are the only US Special Operation Force to employ woman in a combat role (the only other SOF that has employed women at all has been Army Special Forces, and then, only in a training role)."- http://www.delta-green.com/opensource/textbook/socom.html
  • 3) " There is also the Funny Platoon, an intel group that uses female operatives."-http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dngrjobs.htm
  • 4) "Under its umbrella, Delta is said to consist of three operational — direct action shooting — squadrons, a support squadron, a signal squadron, an aviation platoon, and what is often referred to as the Funny Platoon, believed to be one of the few special operations units allowing female operators among the trigger pullers."-http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swatjester&action=submit

Possibly these sources do not meet scientific demands but they are an indication for the "Funny Platoon's existence. (MARK S. 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Classified stuff

Hey Mark, just browsing through some of your pages, and I didn't find anything specific, but, considering your area of expertise, please make sure you don't place classified information U.S. special forces. Obviously there's no rule against this, other than some respect and courtesy for the armed forces. thanks a bunch.