User talk:ForwardObserver85

Re
Welcome to wikipedia. When undoing edits, you should give more of a reason than unreasonable "deletions". Can you please explain yourself? Pending an explanation of your revert, I will restore the article to its prior version. Please discuss further changes on the article's talk page. Thank you. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "highly" is unnecessary : classified means classified.
 * "on by [...] on" is not a correct gramatical construction.
 * the see also section is only for links that are not prominently included in the article, e.g. Canadian Airborne Regiment and Devil's Brigade. The other links are already in the article; as for the  section, we should not have more than one 'see also' section per the Manual of Style. 'See also' sections should only be for the directly relevant links, not for alleged 'equivalent' articles, especially when left unsourced; what next, should we link all ~100 other articles about equivalent units in their respective states? We already have a list of SOF units, and it does not belong on an individual article.

February 2013
Hello, I'm Dainomite. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Operation Gothic Serpent because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —  - dain   omite    23:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Special Forces (United States Army), it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. ''Hey, 13 Foxtrot, when you use the preview button and scan through the article, mistakes about citation format show up. Also, you've got to explain edits. Simply swapping out sourced material (like army.mil stuff) doesn't work. Thanks.'' – S. Rich (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

See: Help:References and page numbers. – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

AHHH! It looks like you have a better Understanding of the Operational Environment of WikiPedia. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

When I type the four tildes, it inserts my name but it isn't linked to my page. Why? ForwardObserver85 (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

List of special forces units
The key word in the SOF/SF definitions that reoccur is that SOF/SF do 'unconventional' (that is, I believe, not force-on-force manoeuvre/attrition) warfare. Are you arguing that Force Recon is a 'conventional' unit in those terms? It might be quite possible to be a SOF/SF unit and still be part of the FMF... Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very quick response; I appreciate it. I believe I understand your argument, but as far as the definitions that I've tried to carefully collect at the top of the page indicate, both NATO and the Routledge military dictionary would say unconventional = SOF/SF. You're obviously a editor who respects sources - I've been taking a look at some of your edits - so in this case, would you not agree that in terms of the definitions listed at the top of the page, Force Recon could be considered a SOF/SF unit? Anyway, whatever the outcome, thank you for your service, and nice to chat... Buckshot06 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thankyou - I appreciate it. That is big of you. The other question was the original function of the Rangers. I probably agree with you that now in 2014, they are SOF/SF, even if only because of their Tier 2 ring-holding role. But originally, when the 75th Ranger Regt (this version, not the Rangers of WW II etc) was established, my impression was that they were to be used at company level or above company level as specialised infantry. What would be your thoughts on that? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your thoughts, FO 85 (if I may be so bold as to abbreviate your handle). If you scan through my edits, you'll see mostly a focus on forces that are not well covered here due to our WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I've done a lot on the former Soviet Union, France, and did Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But there's truckloads of work to be done on cleaning up a wide variety of (better sources available) U.S. and other Allied units and formations. I have tended to try to stay away from SOF/SF just because of the constant fan-boy problems we face. But may have the chance to pull the book you speak of. If I may ask, were/are you Army or Marines? Kind regards from Aotearoa, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Viewing somebody's contributions isn't too hard. Click on 'History' in the second-tier of instructions on any page, second line under the right top-hand corner, you'll get the page history, with a large number of peoples' edits. After the user name in the page history is 'Contribs' - click on that. Yeah, more sources for SF/SOF would be really good!! Assume you've spend several tours in the sandbox? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Concerning your comment...
Are you freaking kidding me son!? You like to insult people--especially me--here on wikipedia?

RekonDog (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Puzzled
I was about to block you for vandalism for this edit, but then saw you had no history of vandalism in your contributions. So why, as a matter of interest, did you do that? Sarah (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)