Smidsy999

Thanks

Thanks for sorting out that Reference, it mangled a bit for some reason. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pathfinder edits

Your constant removal of the PF for the SR sections shows your lack of research and knowledge in the military field especially in relation to the PF. Ever since the onset on the War On Terror many UK forces units have operated outside their doctrinal remit. If you take the time to read the SR section you'll see that most of the tasks expected to be carrie dout by SR troops relates to PF troops also. I get the feel that this is motivated more by some POV bias or childish angst against PARA/Airborne/PF troops but hope I am wrong (Archangel1 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)).

8 Flt AAC

I don't have access to the current orbat, not that we could reference it anyway, but as far as I can remember 8 Flight has been absorbed and is no longer an independent command. I'm not sure which of the two AAC squadrons it went to but the existing page is probably historical rather than extant.

wrt the C2 issue, acknowledge that JSFAW is joint but it's RAF established and owned, I'll have a think about how to reflect that in the article.

ALR (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK you are correct about 8 Flt my edit could have been better. However it is a Joint unit eg the Comd slot is open to all three services.Smidsy999 (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:British Army No 2 Dress.jpg

I would like clarification of two of your recent edits. This edit appears to have no factual basis in anything other than your own assessment. This edit is, without reliable sources for verification, a significant violation of WP:BLP. Could you explain, please? Happy‑melon 16:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The photo perports to be a WO1 in the Parachute Regiment. If it were in fact a WO1 (or any soldier in the British Army) in he would know that the Sam Brown cross belt goes over the other shoulder. He would also have the trousers correctly fitted so they were not about two inches too long.Smidsy999 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'd agree that even by the standards of the great-unwashed he's a complete scranbag I think you need something a bit more substantive to use the photo on the walting page. I'd question whether the use of the photo to illustrate the pejorative usage probably needs run past the WP:BLP area.

ALR (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your reference to 'the great unwashed'?

Anyone who has served in the army can list several errors in how that 'uniform' has been put on, they would not be made by a Cpl, let alone a WO1. I've no real objection to it coming off the Walt article, I suspect that the subject of the phot may be the person who uploaded the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidsy999 (talk • contribs)

The Army ;)

ALR (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the image from the Walter Mitty page (again); please do not restore it without verification from reliable sources. I will ask the uploader of the original image to comment here. Happy‑melon 17:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the origional uploader of the image. I know that guy personally and would like to confirm he is a retired soldier of the Paras. I won't give particular personal information, for obvious reasons.

I would suggest not assuming the worst in people and then accusing them publicly of fraud (see Edit Summary of British Army uniform, without evidence to back yourself up. A simple mistake in putting on a belt is hardly something to warrant the assumption that he is faking his rank and his (hard earned) Maroon Berret. Philip.t.day (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Philip you have been (at best) 'had'. Your reluctance to divulge other personal information is touching, but rather disingenuous given that you have posted the ‘gentleman’s’ picture on the internet. WO1s do not put belts on upside down and back to front ‘by accident’, they have correctly fitted uniforms with the correct badges and accoutrements and know how to adopt the position of attention.

I suggest you tell your ‘friend’ that, in addition to it being a criminal offence under the Uniforms Act, members of the British Armed Forces in general and Airborne Forces in particular take a very dim view of those wear medals, uniform and insignia that they have not earned.

Should you wish to continue this discussion I suggest you do so here http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=48629/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=8600.html

Smidsy999 (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the individual concerned, although not a 'real' RSM, is an ex-Para who is employed by Brighton College to run their Cadets. He is however dressed absolutely disgracefully. On top of all his other errors as a CCF instructor he should be wearing CCF shoulder titles Given his state it’s not surprising the that Smidsy came to the conclusion that he was a Walt.

Not a good example of the Briish Army SNCO or WOBlackshod (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep ARRSE have found the chap. It is at this point that I'd like to actually thank smidsy999 as you are trying to do some good work on en.wikipedia. At the same time a lesson to learn from this would be; do not commit libel, it doesn't help anybody. In this case the edit summary: "picture removed as it shows wrong example of British Army no. 2's" would have sufficed. Then, some evidence would have been a good counterpart to the claim, and public posting of his being "a walt".

So, despite the hurried nature of your conclusions; Thank you, for all of your hard work on en.wikipedia, and I hope to come across your work again, but hopefully in a more informed circumstance. Philip.t.day (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well that seems to resolve the issue. Now, does anyone have a decent picture of someone wearing No2s we can use instead? Happy‑melon 21:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)