Talk:List of military special forces units

message: Dear , in accordance with your talk page instructions I am leaving this note here.
I have been backing  and his opinions in this issue re Spartan 3000 because the information available to me suggested the designation was for a rotational tasking, not a specific special forces unit, now since having gained a more official South Korean nickname (translated as "Guarantee Victory").
But  has started a WP:DR process without following the proper procedure, it appears, notifying you - even if that meant he had to post a short note on your talk page which you would have removed. 
So if this user continues to breech conventions any case you make will be substantially strengthened. 
Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, it's frustating enough that I have to repeatedly explain this to Footwicks, but you should know better. I didn't ban him from my tp, I asked him to post his comments about this article, on this article's talk page, because that's where they belong. I didn't ban you either. After reading your last post on my tp, I removed it, just like I do every other post, however I added the summary "... let's be done". Why? Well, after calling me a racist a few weeks back, (and then doubling down on that), you show up here, and without apparently reading this full thread, accuse me of failing to AGF, (twice), accuse me of "jumping down his throat" (and yet you also bring up Jman? Look at how you treated that kid), accuse me of mistreating this editor because of his poor English skills (still think me a racist it seems). And yet, I hadn't made an issue of his English, in fact afaic it's just fine, far better than many editors here that can barely speak a word of English and still contribute significant content to this site, while following the policies & guidelines without any difficulty. And, you accused me "newbie biting" an editor that has been on this site for 13 years with 62,000+ edits?? (not including experince on ko.wp) But, you aplogize becuase he didn't notify me about a DR report? Ok... got it. Thanks. - wolf 03:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology 

message: I just looked up the source about the organization of the Korean Marine Corps. What has now been identified is a brigade-level unit of about 3,000 Marines called the ROK Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force in March 2016. The unit is also a temporary formation unit in which three brigades belonging to the 1st Marine Division alternate with each other to perform tasks such as rapid task force for a period of time. In other words, this unit can be expanded or disbanded in the event of a local provocation or war on the Korean Peninsula. The name "Spartan 3000" is presumably a nickname given to the unit's 3,000 personnel, but since 2016, no mention of "Spartan 3000" has been found in Korean sources.
Currently, the unit's official name is ROK Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force, which was nicknamed winning unit (제승부대, Hanja: 制勝部隊) at the time of its creation, but is no longer called this nickname. I think it would be most appropriate to call this unit ROK Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force. If you can't find a compromise with each other, I think it's a good compromise to put the general name or nickname, Spartan 3000 together. What is clear to date is that there is still a brigade-level unit with 3,000 troops under the command of the 1st Marine Division called the ROK Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force. Gasiseda (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2023 (UT
:"" - I thought so. (Well sorta... I'm not sure if it was "good" compromise, or really just way to finally bring this to a close). Anyway, Fw rejected the idea, and is not willing to compromise. This is now at DRN. We'll see what happens there. As for your comments, I read them, and appreciate the effort, but as I'm sure you know, content changes and additions need to be supported by sourcing. If you can provide anything reliable and more recent than the current sources, that would be appreciated as well. - wolf 22:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: (arbitrary break #3)

message: :I have a question
:Have you checked out NY times sources you attached.
:
:(1) Telegraph source (2016-03-21) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence: "South Korea has formed an elite force of 3,000 marines which is poised to carry out raids inside North Korea (in 2016) 
:(2) New York Times (2017-09-12) - NY Times source have a follow sentence: the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a decapitation unit" would be established by the end of the year (end of the 2017)."
:
:In chronological order, two sources are saying contradicting facts, also, Please find the term "Spartan 3000" in the whole prose from NY Times sourse.
:NY Times source didn't have the term "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps.
:You are an English native speaker and You look very smart.
:Surmisedly, You provided this link - NY TIMES
:But this link have a problem of accesibility. So I also couldn't read the whole prose. But I found the article in Wayback Machine recently. 
:Because of this problem of accesibility, I think that you can't read the whole prose and you you made a mistake.
:Please read the NY Time source again.
:Can I remove NY Times source on the list?
Footwiks (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Spartan 3000 does not exist. it was just the dummy name for a proposed rapid reaction unit, that didn't even make it further than concept stage. it's similar to how Delta Force is called Task Force Green in some military sources. you're arguing over a nonexistent unit. in the end, what was supposed to be spartan 3000 was taken up by (multiple) rotating, high readiness, already existing unit(s). 92.87.96.3 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a more recent reliable source to support that? This also applies to some of the changes you made today. - wolf 05:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  the only reliable source is western nonsense. and editors who can't use their brain. show me on any official ORBAT where the spartan 3000 is. don't give me new york times cnn tabloid blog level nonsense. 92.87.96.3 (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I get that you disagree with the entry, but you can't remove sourced content just because you don't like it, or the sources. Unlike some of the refs you had added to your entries, NYT and CNN and recognized as reliable sources here on WP. I get the impression from your edits, and the insults, that you are not familliar with theb rules that govern this project.I have tried to assist you by going to the user talk page of the IP account you're currently using, and adding templates, along with a personal note, all of which contain several links to relevant and important polices and guidelines, that you really should read, thoroughly, before proceeding with this dispute any further. You will see that you can't just simply delete sourced content by saying the sources suck and all the editors here are idiots. You also can't add or change content, supported only with inter-web detritis and talk page posts that are the eqiivalent of 'Cuz I said so!.So, that said, please read your talk page, before continuing with this. Thank you - wolf 07:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

text: You've been here since 2009 and have almost 300 edits worth of experience, so surely you know that content is determined by what is found in reliable sources, not what you "think is obvious". Amd we're not talking about a couple of borderline refs here, were talking about multiple, widely-accepted sources. Footwiks claims to have a letter which means... well, so far nothing. He also claimed he was going to pursue this (at RSN next... I think) if there was anything left to pursue after arguing about this ad nauseum last year (and that's just here, have you even read the the DRN...?), but instead he just disappeared, then got himself indef'd a few months later for CIR, DE & CV, among other things.Anyway, there's a proper way to go about this, and posting nonsense such as: "" - is. not. it. I really don't care what what the Korean Wikipedia community thinks about me. Now, if the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus that this entry should be removed, then so be it. But I'm not going to ignore the improper removal of sourced content, just because you, Footwiks, or some random ip user doesn't like it and can't be bothered to go about the correct to address their concerns about it. Have a nice day - wolf 06:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certain that Spartan 3000 does not exist, and furthermore, it seems unnecessary to discuss this further, as we have received an official answer from the 1st Marine Division of the Republic of Korea that the unit does not exist. Gasiseda (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Certain" according to... what? We have an entry that is certainly well supported by multiple sources that are widely (if not universally) accepted as reliable. Many of these sources were supplied by Footwiks himself during the... lengthy, and troubled, dispute spread across multiple talk pages, both user and article, as well as at DRN, and a vow to continue at RSN, (which didn't happen due to said block). As for the purported "official letter", well, nothing has really come of that. Now I take it you are also a part of this group of Korean editors that has an issue with this entry. All I can say to you is the same as I've said to your cohorts, which is there is a way to do things here and way not to. You've been here for almost 3 years, with almost 3000 edits, (not incl. other wikis), so you should have an idea of the right way and the wrong way. As for me, I've already said I'll go with any commumity consensus otm, or changes supported by sourcing and/or policy. I'm not married to any particular entry, I just watch the page, and fix edits that need... fixing. Have a nice day - wolf 06:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Spartan 3000 ''redux''

message: Remove i know intimately that this unit does not exist, but i guess my word as a former member of said military that supposedly has this unit is not as important as some part time western writers with mid google translate skills. have a nice day 2A02:2F0C:C203:D400:A9F9:AF7F:3A9:40D1 (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how Wikipedia works. - wolf 21:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: so you just spread falsehoods and ban anyone who tries to make corrections. genius. no wonder my uni professor would fail anyone on the spot, who was caught using wikipedia as a source. 2A02:2F0C:C203:D400:81A:29C0:8CA4:B0AD (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I... wut? - wolf 11:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

text: What is "questionable"...? There was, as last count, over 20 refs that support this entry, with numerous reliable sources in English, and many more in Korean. Content is based on sourcing (see verifiability, not truth). If you have an issue with sourcing, (as you make clear in the manifesto on your user page), you need to address that over at WP:RSN. - wolf 11:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spartan 3000 entry