User talk:Retired User 44052/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Garuda28! talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I don't mind if you use "Military Academy", but it has to be "The Military Academy". USMA is different from Naval Academy and Air Force Academy, because that's what these schools are known as. If you actually google Naval Academy and Air Force Academy, United States Naval Academy and United States Air Force Academy will pop up. If you search "Military Academy", you will see different things, which is absolutely a terrible name for USMA. It is what it is. It doesn't not have to be consistent with other service academies.It doesn't matter what you link to as well. The name is inappropriate-Šolon (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the

Military history WikiProject

! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several
  detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics
  .
• We have a number of
  task forces
  that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the recent edits to

@BilCat: Dang that was vile. I'm reaching out to him to see exactly what his issue is with the article and I'm going to attempt to mediate a solution if he responds. While I was at it I noticed that there was a similar talk requesting a move to rename the page to Andrews Air Force Base, like we did at Langley Field. Do you know if you could make the move the same way you did before or teach me how to do so? Thanks. Garuda28 (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Re: the move I made on Langley, it's called a swap, and can only be done by users with Page Mover status or by admins. Page Mover status is granted to experienced and trusted editors on a case by case basis, per Wikipedia:Page mover. It's a great tool, but you need a lot of Wikipedia experience, especially in participating in move discussions, to get it. It's something to work towards if you want. - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

On swapping the Andrews pages, remind me in about a week, and if there's been no objection to your comments there about renaming, I'll do it then. - BilCat (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. I'll keep you updated on the status of the edits on Andrews field if they flare up or if I can get some solution going. Garuda28 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@

Hickam Field to Hickam Air Force Base. Thanks user:BilCat

!

Done. - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Garuda, Auxiliary Pilot Badge has many issues, many caused by an inexperienced user. I added problem tags and a split tag, but didn't have a chance to explain my reasons. The user has already removed them twice, and left a hostile note on the talk page. Can you help? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I can get around to that sometime this week for sureGaruda28 (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I noted the change you made to the "Commamders" section of the

No worries! I fully intend to when I get some time (maybe over the next week), for now it was solely to revert it back to the way the page was.Garuda28 (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Meanwhile, if you have a free moment, can you take a look at this? Some questionable edits. Brand new editor, not particularly cooperative. And, I don't have access to the sources he has cited. (maybe you do?) Anyway, if you don't mind, take a look and see what you think? Cheers. -

^theWOLFchild

08:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC) (btw - I can take care of the infoboxes, i've got some free time right now)

infoboxes

OK, I've just finished. The 'commander' section of the other 4 service branch infoboxes now match up with the way you set up the USAF box. The only difference to be found is in the service-specific rank abbreviations, as they vary depending on service, but it needs to be that way. However, there is a uniformity to all those sections now. (We'll see how long it lasts). I'm done for now. Hopefully when you're back in, you'll get a chance to check out that issue I posted on the FBI talk page, (if you don't mind). Cheers -

Had a chance to look at the article, seems like the problems were mostly addressed. I'll keep my eye out for any future edits of that nature. Thanks for your work on the infoboxes!Garuda28 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks TheWolfChild! I’ve been looking all over for these and will be sure to use them. Garuda28 (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how much you already know about this stuff, (so sorry if I'm being redundant), but on the left of the 'search' box at the top of the page is the twinkle (TW˅) drop-down menu. On that you'll find all the warning templates, as well as welcome templates and such. Cheers -

^theWOLFchild

00:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain this edit? And the removal of the data about 17th Division, 4th Corps? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Buckshot06:Sure! Most of the edits were of a minor nature (capitalization, proper terminology). That specific one was completely unsourced in the prior citation. The German U.S. fund dispute didn’t seem to fit on the ANA page, since it doesn’t directly apply to the ANA, and rather is more appropriate for German-U.S. relations. Does that answer your concerns?Garuda28 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The 17th Div, 4th Corps, for Herat, is well sourced. Happy to find an additional source if necessary. Also, for the ANA, "following the money" is vital for discussion of foreign support, which we hardly have in sophisticated terms of the monies at all. I want that in there. The remainder edits were great - yes, late 2002 is a great date for a start, though arguably some battalions were trained before. Definitely better than 1798 or whatever.. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think maybe a source directly related to the commander would be great! Gotcha, I understand on the German thing. Yeah, that’s why I added one for the modern ANA and one for the first (since the article covers all of the Afghan Army). As always great working these out with you!Garuda28 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Im new to Wikipedia editing, where is the United States Special Operations Forces talk page Mickteen11 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Mickteen11Talk:United States special operations forces. Linked it here and on your page!Garuda28 (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You clearly have access to this year's edition of the almanac. Can you tell me which AEGs it lists in Air Forces Africa, and where and what they're flying? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Unforunitally the lowest it goes is wing level, sorry. They seem to have overlooked AEGs in this edition. Garuda28 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. What wings are listed, and at which bases? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I don’t have it on me at the moment, but I’ll make sure I get you that information this Sunday or Monday. Garuda28 (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

So its combined for USAFE and AFA

31st FW (Aviano AB)

39th Airbase Wing (Incirlik AB)

48th FW (RAF Lakenheath)

52nd FW (Spangdahlem AB)

86th Airlift Wing (Ramstein AB)

100th Air Refueling Wing (RAF Mildenhall)

435th Air Ground Operations Wing (RAF Alconbury)

501st Combat Support Wing (RAF Alconbury)

603rd Air & Space Operations Center (Ramstein AB)

There is a discussion about whether to add clarifying text (shown in boldface ) to

Hi Garuda, you may be interested in an evolved suggestion regarding

MOS:JOBTITLES that is receiving support/non-support at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Alternative suggestion for comment. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk

) 17:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion, the message I put up at Pratikus's talk page was not meant for you. I'm afraid that they do not seem to understand talk page guidelines and are modifying other editors' comments in a misleading manner. —Gazoth (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 7th Operations Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Air Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you know what time the ceremony is scheduled for? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Scheduled to start at 2pm eastern time. I'd say as soon as that starts we can officially upgrade

USCYBERCOM and all the other UCC articles, since that's what DOD has said when the change will occur. Garuda28 (talk

) 16:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Roger, thanks! AzureCitizen (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed this; you're 100% correct that it's not a sub-unified combatant command (I misfired there). What I meant to say was that it was a service component command (the ASCC in this case for USCYBERCOM of course). See the Army public affairs release here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is legally designated as a military service, but not an armed service, as was updated in this edit, which you undid. I'm not sure I can understand your reason for this ("References do not say this is typically a military service"). The edit indicated that the PHS Commissioned Corps is designated as a military service, as supported by the links to multiple sections of US Code - while preserving very clearly the appropriate distinction between "Armed Service" (which PHS is not) and "Uniformed Service". The law explicitly defines PHS as a military service, which it does *not* do for NOAA (the other unarmed Uniformed Service), so it is not accurate to ignore the distinction. It sounds like you are conflating "Armed Service" and "Military Service" in responding to this edit, which is a common and understandable but inaccurate view - PHS officers commonly face undue challenges in accessing military benefits they have earned and are legally guaranteed. It seems unnecessary to contribute further to this misperception by removing factual information.

Perhaps a more appropriate edit is along the lines of "PHS Commmissioned Corps is legally designated as a military service, though not considered one of the 5 Armed Services, and officers of the PHS are classified as noncombatants...", rather than deleting the phrase entirely. I would also welcome your suggestion for rephrasing this if something about it still does not sit well.

120.29.112.185 (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please start a discussion on the article talk page, where it can be seen by all. Garuda28 (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked up 5 U.S. Code § 8331 - Definitions because I was curious about the definition. First off, the NOAA Corps IS included in the "military service" definition, because this particular subchapter was written when the NOAA Corps's direct predecessor, the Environmental Science Services Administration Commissioned Officer Corps, was in service. The ESSA Corps is mentioned under 5 U.S. Code § 8331(13)(c) of the aforementioned "military service" definition. Second, and most importantly, the 5 U.S. Code § 8331 clearly states, that the definitions in subsection 8331 is "For the purpose of this subchapter" (namely Subchapter III) only, and is not the definitions used for the entirety of Title 5. I find that to be very important because 5 U.S. Code § 2101, states "For the purpose of this title" are definitions that encompass the entirety of Title 5 itself.

5 U.S. Code § 2101 - Civil service; armed forces; uniformed services states....

For the purpose of this title—

(1) the “civil service” consists of all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services;

(2) “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard; and

(3) “uniformed services” means the armed forces, the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This mirrors the definitions as stated in 10 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions

(a) In General.—The following definitions apply in this title:

(1) The term “United States”, in a geographic sense, means the States and the District of Columbia.

[(2) Repealed. Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, § 1057(a)(1), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440.]

(3) The term “possessions” includes the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Guano Islands, so long as they remain possessions, but does not include any Commonwealth.

(4) The term “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

(5) The term “uniformed services” means—

(A) the armed forces;

(B) the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and

(C) the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.

So going by the definition of 5 U.S. Code § 2101, which covers the entire Tittle 5 and supersedes the definitions from 5 U.S. Code § 8331, the Public Health Service and the NOAA Corps are NOT part of the military, since one, they are considered noncombatants, and two, they do not carry weapons, unless they are attached to one of the five armed services, in which case they could bare arms depending it their assignment requires it and henceforth militarized for the duration of said assignment. The entire corps of the PHS and NOAA cannot be militarized as a while unless the president of the United States designates each service as military. Neovu79 (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this, @Neovu79. You're correct that NOAA and USPHS are defined equally considering the reference to ESSA Corps, which I had missed - appreciate the correction. In any case, the challenge is the muddled and inconsistent way these 2 services are defined under 42 U.S. Code § 213 as "active military service" with respect to full eligibility for military benefits, while being unarmed services leads to two overlapping but not equivalent definitions of "military" and "armed" services... While other sections of US Code as you pointed out are narrow in their definition of "military" to be essentially equivalent to "armed" services.

To stick with my intent of being directly faithful to both the text and spirit of the law, I would propose stating factually that active service in the PHS is defined under law as "military service" with respect to eligibility for military benefits and legal protections, but that the service is a noncombatant service, unlike the 5 armed military services. @Garuda28 I agree to raise the question on the article talk page in a bit but don't have the bandwidth in the immediate future to be able to contribute well to any active discussion that arises.

123.176.71.5 (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In the past, you've rightly changed redirects for the U.S. Space Force to the U.S. Air Force -- good idea. As of today, however, the U.S. president has called for the creation of an independent Space Force, a co-equal branch of the U.S. armed services. Any suggestions on what to do with redirects now would be appreciated. I've put out a U.S. Space Force page, to be expanded as time goes on. Regards, Senatus (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Firstly it should be under United States, not U.S., space force. I’d hold off from what already has been done, since an announcement does not mean that it will be done. Garuda28 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Commander in Chief, as it refers to the president of the United States has no hyphens. The few changes I’ve made have been restored to the original hyphenated version. I cite the originating authority, The Constitution of the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Article_Two https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.archives.gov/files/founding-docs/downloads/Constitution_Pg3of4_AC.jpg?download=true&filename=US-Constitution-p3.jpeg

This evidence is definitive and absolute. There is no ambiguity.

This is the page I’ve corrected and it then get changed back. Is that automatic or is someone doing it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy

Wiki info must be corrected when wrong.

thanks!

You must first achieve consensus, which you do not have. Go to talk page and start a discussion on it. Garuda28 (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

in that template?

Becaus the other states don’t divide they’re forces in the same way. 20th Air Force is the only strategic missile force in the U.S. Garuda28 (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Good work slimming down the USAF page. -

thanks! I’m just getting started and have been working on a new history and organization section offline. Garuda28 (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That is very interesting. Miller is a career reserve officer, and for a reserve officer be nominated for a fourth star extremely rare. There is only one known four-star position that follows a reserve officer pipeline and that's the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and currently General Lengyel still has two more years remaining and I haven't heard of him requesting for early retirement. U.S. Northern Command's deputy commander has been a reserve officer three-star since 2008 (also particularly from the National Guard), and there was once talk about making the commander of USNORTHCOM a four-star officer from the National Guard, but that never came to fruition. Even now, General O'Shaughnessy only assumed command of USNORTHCOM this past May, so that rules out that job going to Miller. Her career, staff positions and commands held, are pretty broad throughout her career, so I can't make heads or tails on what current-known four-star position she may be inheriting. My hunch is that they are opening up a new four-star position for her. I hope they announce something soon. It's killing my curiosity. Neovu79 (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Same! This is so cool! I can’t pin it down yet, but I can’t think of any commands off the top of my head! Garuda28 (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

After doing a thorough review of the remaining four-star positions, so far I see one likely and two outside possibilities. Generals

U.S. Southern Command, Air Force Materiel Command and Air Mobility Command available. Out of the three, Air Mobility Command is the most likely destination for Miller, in my opinion. Miller has a lot of experience as a commander of reserve air forces, particularly in air mobility and airlift, which AMC encompasses. In the earlier part of her career, she's flown in a hand full of the aircraft AMC uses. But most importantly, a good portion of AMC is comprised of reserve airmen and Air National Guardsmen. Neovu79 (talk

) 14:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I downloaded the PDF file that 475847394d347339 linked and did a keyword search for flag. While the logo and flag color of the flag that 475847394d347339 posted is in the document on page 14, however section "1.5.6 Protection of logo integrity" which is listed on the same page states, Although the NATO flag is a recognisable symbol of the Alliance worldwide, it is never to be used as a signature on NATO publications, for other communication purposes or as a replacement for the NATO logo... The official colour code for the blue is PMS 280. which is the color of flag that is in the navigation box. In conclusion, I am inclined to agree with you that 475847394d347339 is interpenetrating it incorrectly. The compass of the logo are the same, but the flag color is PM 280, which is a darker blue than the one 475847394d347339 is referring to as a 2016 color change. Neovu79 (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to have a look! Great to have a second opinion on it. Garuda28 (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No comment whatsoever. You know, since we have two instances of the flag and no instance of the real flag, I think it's quite notable. 475847394d347339 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Have some patience. Current consensus is against addition, so what that means is that unless other users chime in it will almost certainly not be added. Garuda28 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is from when there was only one instance of the flag. Neovu79 hasn't commented after I found the second instance. 475847394d347339 (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The arguments are nearly the same. The bottom line is that there is no consensus to add, so wait for people to comment. One instance vs. two instances does not change the argument. Garuda28 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It implies a broader policy of use. I don't know why you think the argument is nearly the same. Besides, you may look for yourself and find no instance of the proper flag. 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Doing this is

WP:ANALYSIS which is explicitly forbidden. You need to wait for more people to comment if you want to add it to the article. We work on consensus here. If you want to add this you need to wait for consensus to form. So I realize WP:Analysis might not be clear. What it means is that we cannot interpret primary sources to mean something (like different flags meaning that there are secondary or unofficial ones). To do this we need a secondary source to explicitly state this. Does this make more sense? Garuda28 (talk

) 19:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the argument really against inclusion? It is to be clearly noted that it's not the official flag. Neovu79 just noted the sentence "The official colour code for the blue is PMS 280." on page 14. So what is the argument against noting the use of the two flags? 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The argument is that you are looking different sources and coming to a conclusion that the sources do not explicitly (or even not explicitly state). In essence you are coming to a conclusion that the sources do not state. That is text book

WP:ANALYSIS?Garuda28 (talk

) 19:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the conclusion you think I am coming to? Please excuse me for drawing it out. 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries! What I see is that you are finding different variations of the NATO flag within different NATO publications. Seeing that, you believe that they must be alternative or unofficial variations and wish to add that as such. Is this correct? Garuda28 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

NATO does not make a statement about any alternative or unofficial flag, but they appear, and I want to state no more (in the article). 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Becsuse they do not state anything about it we cannot say anything about it. Doing more than that is what violates

WP:ANALYSIS. Garuda28 (talk

) 19:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It's excessive to ask that NATO state that this flag being used is meant to represent NATO, but that's not required. 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually according to the way Wikipedia works, that is exactly what is required. Garuda28 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Then we also can't say that "Kabul" in the map in the 2014 Secretary General's Annual Report is meant to refer to Kabul, Afghanistan. 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that we can because it is explicitly stated. Garuda28 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

There are flags of Germany and US as well. What can we do with those? 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Tell me, is it explicitly stated that these NATO flags are alternate variants? Garuda28 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

They are "alternative" just because they don't conform to the founding standards. 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Or they could be errors that were not caught. The bottom line is we do not know since it was not explicitly stated. Since it was not explicitly stated it cannot be added. Garuda28 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"Unofficial" suits it well also. We can't say it is error just because it doesn't conform. Why does it have to conform anyway? They can use any flag and we have a right to put it when the use is considerable or notable. 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

But we cannot say what it is. Anyways, it’s use does not appear to be notable either. The bottom line is that what is being done is pulling at threads. Wait for more people to comment and maybe you may have enough consensus to add. Until then, consensus appears to be against. Garuda28 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You are breaching WP:ANALYSIS by pondering whether the "alternate" flags could be mistakes. 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

What? I brought up that example to illustrate exactly why WP:ANALYSIS is in existence. We cannot know exactly why something is the way it is, so we cannot analyze it when we do sourcing. Garuda28 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note, your original complaint to Neovu79 was that "My interpretation is that the document deals with the logo, not the flag." At the time, you didn't look at the flag which appears on page 14. While Neovu79 himself just noted that on page 14, the Visual Identity Guideline notes "The official colour code for the blue is PMS 280." These two statements can not be taken to indicate a position agains the putting of thes two flags in the article, that you claim there is. 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I asked them for a second opinion, not a complaint. And they agreed that you are misinterpreting the source. Now if you want to continue a conversation on content, please do so on the article talk page and not on mine so that everyone can see this. Garuda28 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANALYSIS

means (please don't take this as an implication that I believe what you're doing is wrong) - I haven't dug into the matter in-depth; I was asked to assist with explaining the policy :-).

Wikipedia (and all encyclopedias around the world) are important sources of information because they

cited in-line and linked

) to a reliable source.

Reliable sources are those that meet a list of important criteria, including that they are secondary (meaning that the source references primary sources for their information), are completely free and independent of the subject (no conflict of interest, ties, or anything like that), are peer-reviewed and scrutinized, and accepted as providing objective analysis. We must not only write articles and content using those sources for verification (since those are the best places to get that information in the first place), but we must also write content that directly reflects the information as it's presented, stated, concluded, or analyzed by those sources and with absolutely no deviation.

Here's an example: Let's say there are three forests (let's just name them forest A, forest B, and forest C) and we're writing an article about a large and dangerous wolf that hides in one of those three forests and comes out at night to eat people. If reliable sources state that hunters looked in forest A and B but were unable to find the wolf, we must write the article and reflect the statements from those sources as they're said. We absolutely cannot use the information from those sources and also write that, "since the wolf wasn't found in forest A or B, the wolf must be hiding in forest C". That's an example of

good faith

... it's absolutely not information that's any good nor is it information we accept because there's no possible way to actually verify it.

I hope this message has helped to explain the issue and why the concerns being expressed above need to be discussed on the article's talk page and a

dispute resolution protocol so that everyone has a chance to discuss the concerns and come to a consensus. If you have any questions about anything I explained or any policy pages that linked you to, please do not hesitate to message me on my user talk page here and I'll be happy to help you further. I hope this response has helped and I hope that this issue comes to a positive closure. Good luck to you both! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

12:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I didn't take the time to read over your explanation. Do you think page 14 of the NATO Visual Identity Guidelines and page 8 of Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014 will breach Wikipedia's citation policies? My effort is not to note that NATO as an alternative flag but to note two instances of an alternative flag. I tried to note for some time that it is hard to find flags in NATO documents, because NATO specifies that logos should be used instead. I added that to the article without any misfeelings. 475847394d347339 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

475847394d347339 - Aww... C'mon, man... That's cold. I spent some good time on that message for you! :-(

From what I'm reading, it sounds like there's a dispute over the

original research", this is just a matter of getting the image correct so that the proper flag is displayed... that doesn't sound like it should be too complicated. Regardless, it is under dispute and you do need to discuss your findings on the article's talk page. Given what you provided here, I'd say that if you believe that the flag is incorrectly colored or not to the specifications outlined, then those documents would be perfect in proving this. Please let me know if I was incorrect in my interpretation of the dispute (and do explain so I can understand), or if you have any more questions or concerns. I'll be happy to help discuss the matter in an objective an uninvolved position. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

19:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

RSStockdale (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging on this User:RSStockdale! If it was established by a general order I'm fine with keeping in it that category. I personally don't find it necessary, but if you think its useful I'm good with keeping it. Garuda28 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much for moving the article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_and_Information_Domain_Service_(Germany) ) to the right name but unfortunately it's still not correct. LtGen Leinhose is double headed. He is on one hand the chief of the new IT branch in Germany, the Cyber and Information Domain Service. And with his second duty he is the Commander of the headquarter of the branch in Bonn. The headquarter is called Cyber and Information Domain Service Headquarters. Because the wiki article only deals with the Headquarters and noch the over all Branch it is wrong to leave out this part of the name. If it stays like it is the hole content with the substructure of all subordinated units can be deleted. The Cyber and Information Domain Service is seen in Germany nearly like Army or Air force. It's a fully separated Branch. Or would you talk about the Army Headquarter and call it only Army? Thank you. Schariez (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So that name is the one reflected in http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicweb/de/nav-main-news-de/62-cat-english-en/cat-gcmc-pao-en/cat-gcmc-pao-news-en/2326-art-news-1-02-jan-18-en.html. If you can provide an English language source for your claim we can discuss it in the article. My suggestion is to make the article deal with the branch and headquarters, if you provide some sources on the organization I can help out. Garuda28 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That is the problem. I can provide enough German language sources but this was the only one from our media team in English. I can scan my business card but I don't want to display it on wikipedia. I'm working for my HQ in international environments and because we're new everybody looks up the HQ. Our official stuff is hidden in military networks and everybody is fine but with industry it's a problem and when a wrong name is settled it's hard to get rid of it. Like in this article were someone used a wrong wording without any source and now it can't be changed by the people how work there. I was not aware that it is so difficult to change wrong stuff without any source to correct stuff. If you have a look on our military academy ( https://www.fueakbw.de/index.php/en/faculty-of-joint-operations-the-cyber-and-information-domain-service-and-the-joint-support-service ) you'll find at the top that they belong to the domain service and later on (what we do) they describe that they support the headquarters.Schariez (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunitally if there is no original source there is not much we can do, since a name is already provided. Also since you are affiliated with the organization you need to familiarized yourself with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I’m also not entirely sure I understand the difference between the service and headquarters that you are trying to state. Maybe if there is an English language article written now or in the future you could send it my way? I really would love to help, but without sources there is not much that can be done at the moment. Garuda28 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Just thought you would want to know, that on August 13, 2018, President Trump signed into law, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. It includes the re-establishment of the U.S. Space Command by the end of 2018. It will temporarily be a sub-unified combatant command under U.S. Strategic Command, and who's commander will be a four-star general or flag officer, until it can be separated as a full unified combatant command. Neovu79 (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Appriciate it! Implementation will be interesting to see. Garuda28 (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I understand from the reading the NDAA 2019, the law allows the commander of

Air Force Space Command to concurrently serve as the first commander (since 2002) of USSPACECOM during the first three years of it's re-establishment. After that initial three years, they must both be held by separate (assuming four-star) officers. Neovu79 (talk

) 18:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That’s my understanding as well. You might want to take a look at this as well (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402566-trump-to-shake-up-military-leadership-with-new-nominations-report). Looks like a lot of positions are about to change. Garuda28 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That's very funny, because I just read Report: Air Force General May Be Next Head of Joint Chiefs just before looking at your response. It pretty much mirrors The Hill's report as well. I think Generals Goldfein and Hyten are fine choices for either Joint Chiefs assignments. But, the law states that the chairman and vice chairman, and cannot both be filled by officers at the same service branch at the same time. Goldfien would be at the top my list for chairman. It's sad that no Navy officer is being considered for any of these important positions, cause the Navy has been sorely under represented in joint four-star assignments the last 3-4 years. Neovu79 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That they have. If I were betting, it’d be Golfein for Chairman, Milley for vice, and Raymond for Chief of staff of the Air Force (although he’d also be a high candidate for chairman). Lotta Air Force representation this year for sure though. Garuda28 (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The Navy has steadily seen a decline in four-star assignments since Admiral McRaven retired from USSOCOM and they continued to lose positions when Admiral Winnefeld stepped down as vice chairman, and then Admirals Gortney and Haney also retiring in 2016. Since the retirement of Admiral Rogers this year, the Navy has seen a 1 to 5 gain-loss ratio, with the lone gain being USSOUTHCOM with Admiral Kidd. Kidd is retiring this year and Vice Admiral Faller has been nominated to replace him. But, when you have the Army with about the to see an increase from 11 to 14 four-stars and the Air Force with 14, which by the way has 7000 less active-duty personnel than the Navy, which has only 8, you can see that there is a disparity and imbalance of four-star officers. Neovu79 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think your edit to the branch seals in the infobox will last. I won't change it, but don't be surprised if someone else does soon. There are some issues there. Just a heads up... -

Yikes! I didn’t realize the sizing issues weren’t fixed the first time (If that’s what’s up. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I had a look through

User:Thewolfchild Sure! I’ll leave it here as well! So the section is “Formal names of military units, including armies, navies, air forces, fleets, regiments, battalions, companies, corps, and so forth, are proper names and should be capitalized. However, the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name. Thus, the American army, but the United States Army.“ What I was going after was the “American army” vs. “United States Army”. Obviously if consensus reaches a different conclusion for a title (since I’m not sure this has happened before, specifically), then it should change (and I would support capitalization for titles in that case. Garuda28 (talk

) 12:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it would not have to be "Chinese navy", just like the

wolf

19:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I've recently submitted a request to move

Been offline for awhile, but I’ll take a look! Garuda28 (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Is spelled with an "e" on the end.

Didn’t even realize I do that! Thanks for catching that! Garuda28 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Garuda28. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Garuda28, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Meatsgains(talk) 01:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hi I noticed you removed the JSDF suicide information from the page. Can we create a new page and put the information there? - Artanisen (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think it is notable enough for inclusion in general. It probably won’t be able to stand on its own either. If you have more source then maybe it could though. Garuda28 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Tried to fix a bad article.

This article has extensive inaccuracies. I added sourced edits in the first chapter since there were many inaccuracies and there were of course no sources for that section at all.

The other chapters are also heavily inaccurate and either need massive revision or should be eliminated altogether.

I largely wrote the uniform section in Wikipedia "United States Army Air Forces".

To illustrate the point I will list the inaccuracies of the "Class B" section alone. Except for the first chapter which is now corrected the rest of the chapters are just as bad.

The A,B,C,D uniforms in the article are just totally made up. The fact A and B are modern terms is stated but there wasn't then or now a C or D in the U.S. Army. What is given does not even correspond with USMC A B C D uniforms.

1. The campaign hat could be worn with any uniform.

2. Spread Collar refers to a very wide opening for the tie. The Army shirt was not a spread collar type.

3. Rank was not worn on officer's shirt shoulder straps to "prevent snipers". Prior to 1942 the U.S. pin was worn on the right shirt collar and the branch insignia on the left with rank on the shoulder straps if the shirt was being worn as an outer garment. In 1942 this was changed so the rank was removed from the shoulder straps and the U.S. was replaced by the rank on the right collar point.

4. Enlisted personnel did not wear insignia disks on their shirts in WWII. That was a post war development.

5. Enlisted branch of service disks were not worn on the garrison "overseas" cap.

6. Enlisted service stripes were indeed authorized on service shirt sleeves.

The photo of Donald Prell, while I'm sure chosen to honor a WWII veteran shows a blue infantry cord which was not created until the Korean War era. It is also being worn with armored branch insignia which would not be authorized at any time in the U.S. Army. Although I sympathize with the desire to use a WWII vet's photo it's not an accurate WWII uniform example for the purpose of this article.

I could go on but you get the point. This is but one small section. Most of these are easily sourced in the U.S. Army WWII uniform regulations. I am willing to fix the errors but the edit will be very extensive virtually eliminating whole chapters and adding others.

Please give me feedback if you think an administrator will allow me to correct this with well sourced material or at least put in a disputed notice.

Thank you very much, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfhound63 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You may discuss any issues on the talk page. Any changes must be sourced. Garuda28 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

could you please explain why it is unnecessary for the lead? Rajabi.abolghasem (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Per

WP:BRD I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page. It is disputed what missile system shot it down, and even if it wasn’t it is undue for the lead. Garuda28 (talk

) 15:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for being open to compromise on United States Air Force Security Forces. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course! Thank you for helping lead me to a better solution.Garuda28 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Garuda28 ~ Nice meeting you, I think how you edited the lead, gives you a good grasp on wiki ~ reliable sources are not always true ~ but are RS ~ and Wiki ~ blend well together ~ once again nice meeting you ~mitch~ (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It was nice meeting you as well. I’ve been on here for awhile, but this is just another reminder that there is always more to learn. Thank you for helping resolve this. Garuda28 (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In the month of September,

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Functional combatant commands ——联合果君 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@联合果君: “USSPACECOM is a Geographic Combatant Command with a global Area of Responsibility defined as the area surrounding the earth at altitudes equal to or greater than 100 kilometers above mean (average) sea level.“ [1]. Garuda28 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed, Garuda. There was that huge discussion in July on Talk:United States Air Force Security Forces. You and other editors agreed to changes in wording. The changes were made. Now, you're going back and undoing everything you agreed to and making the text read the way you wanted it to originally, which nobody else agreed with. Why are you doing this? Schazjmd (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: That was not my intent at all, I assure you. My intent was to be more specific on emphasizing the functional role in that specific paragraph, given a intermediate change made by another user. I was not going to re-add any of the verbiage about infantry in the infobox, introduction, or any other portion of the article. Given the disagreement I will revert immediately, if that hasn’t been done already. Garuda28 (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Garuda28, I apologize for misunderstanding and not examining each edit carefully enough. Although it appeared to me as if you were gradually putting the original language back in, your explanation makes perfect sense. I overreacted. Thank you for explaining! Schazjmd (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

	Nice to meet you ~
	~ Thanks for your edits on United States Air Force ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• oops ~ LOL sorry ~ getting old ~mitch~ (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries - happy to run into you again. Garuda28 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Space Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Raymond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. " List of countries without armed forces" I recently made an edit in that article with removing content about Haiti and Japan from the lead of that article. For me topic is clear just sovereign countries without army and it is list of them and in the list I checked short description about them. Countries who abolished and reestablished army now has it, so no need about to be in that article. User Timothy Titus reverted my edits and made an edit what fit good into body of whole article. But seems to note about Japan can make edit wars cuz some users think Japan does not have armed forces or to it has limited military capacities what is not true. In the article is said to "The term armed forces refers to any government-sponsored defense used to further the domestic and foreign policies of their respective government". Japan has armed forces, organised and equiped totally in that way, totally separated from police and under control of independent Ministry of defence and recognised by other armies in a form of cooperation with etc. So maybe note about Japan and Haiti should be removed or should be paid more attention to users does not change facs according to their personal views or so. Cheers. 77.46.180.18 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Anywhere in the talk page was reached a consensus, Japan was re-added without consensus. I agree that further discussion is neeeded, however Wikipedia's policies clearly establish that the version of the article should be reversed to the pre-polemic version.

Nevertheless I could agree in removing any mention of Japan whilst the discussion is continued in the talk page, which I think maybe a better option for all parties in the meantime. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that’s fair – If you haven’t already I’ll start a discussion section. Garuda28 (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Just an observation and suggestion. Maybe it would be easier to temporarily block unregistered users from editing the United States Military Academy and United States Naval Academy pages until AFTER the Army-Navy game. LOL... Cuprum17 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m honestly surprised that’s not standard procedure at this point...Garuda28 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your latest edit; work at the CSpOC; we fall under both the Air Force and Space Force. USSF has OPCON and TACON over us, but the Air Force has ADCON over us until the USSF staff is finished standing up their S1, S2, and S3. That should occur in roughly 18 months, but until then, we are Airmen working for the USSF. I have been tasked by our commander to make these edits and he was asking why Air Force got removed. Kyle Mohr (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself with

WP:COIEDIT. I would strongly encourage you discuss all future edits on the talk page and provide sources. Directly editing the articles is discouraged per COIEDIT. Garuda28 (talk

) 16:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I was checking events about US and Iran and declaration of US armed forces as "terrorist organisation" by Iran. I saw to there was discussion on talk page about that at US armed forces article now I saw to similar content is added at US DoD page. I don't know do that note about that has a weight cuz it seems mostly as propaganda move and if it really has some infulence to be noted outside Iran-US relations article. And labeling whole armed forces as terrorists I dont know what kind of infulence can have except some propaganda measure. Maybe should be removed from article of US DoD and discussed at talk page and other editors also to put own oponions. Also I think to Iranian IRCG an quds force are labeled as terrorists but they are paramilitary and labeled by more countries and still not as whole armed forces. 109.245.39.75 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I work* Sorry, typo. Kyle Mohr (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I already have; JAG says I'm in the clear.

Kyle Mohr (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Garuda28,

Thank you for creating Combined Force Space Component Command.

Thank you for your new article on the Combined Force Space Component Command.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Just so ya know, I nominated an arty you created for DYK. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Illegitimate Barrister: Thank you for than and your help on the article as well! It's always a pleasure editing with you.Garuda28 (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No probs. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Garuda,

I saw that you reverted my edit concerning above mentioned insignia. If you look at the Army insignia, worn by Troxell, it has got three rockers, just like all other Army E-9 insignias. The one worn by Colón-López has got five rockers, just like all other Air Force E-9 insignias. As for the Marine Corps, the E-9 insignias all have got four rockers, so, why do you think the USMC SEAC insignia has got only three rockers?

Have a nice day, 2001:7E8:D325:AF01:10EB:830D:755E:6633 (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Be mindful of

@

WP:BRD, which states that if one of your edits is contested, then the proper response is to go to the talk page and discuss the merits of the content, rather than start an edit war. Garuda28 (talk

) 06:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

See this.-Splinemath (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Hello, Retired User 44052. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Uniforms of the United States Space Force.
Message added 12:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlinxTheKitty (talk • contribs) 17:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlinxTheKitty: - much appreciated. For the CFSCC, I thought that the flag itself was the same color as the seal. Is there any way to do that with the program? JTF-SD looks spot on! thank you! Garuda28 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like someones going Deletion Trigger Happy and trying to delete the Space Flags

their seals are Public Domain due to being Published by the US Gov. i have no clue how they think they are copyright vios — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlinxTheKitty (talk • contribs) 17:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I've left a request on their talk page. I'm sure it'll be resolved easily. Garuda28 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Per the Space Force Licensing page, the word marks are available for public use, but "The U.S. Space Force Seal is reserved for internal, official use only." Does mean we can't legally use the Seal? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that we are, just like we are able to use all of the other service seals. My understanding is that the major concerns is commercial use of the seals. Also, I’ve seen it appear (all of the service seals) on a number of news and other websites, so DoD doesn’t seem to interpret it in the strict sense of no one but them can use it. By the same token they protect the DOD seal in the same sense, but public domain usage (like here) seems to be okay. Garuda28 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course! I also took a look, the concern appears to have been brought up before and the same conclusion was reached. Garuda28 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix on United States Air Force enlisted rank insignia. I didn't notice that my revert didn't pick up all of the edits that I meant it to because there were different IPs. Schazjmd (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries! Garuda28 (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Garuda28. With regards to your recent revision comment related to the

• @Lieutcoluseng: Thanks for reaching out. For these citations it doesn’t seem that we have any indication that the medal itself came with a ribbon bar, as we think of them today. It seems the ribbon is likely referring to the piece of fabric that the medal was hung from, rather than a ribbon bar as we think of them today. Do you have any photos by chance which would support a ribbon bar? I don’t believe those came into use until several decades later. Garuda28 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Lieutcoluseng (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

An article you recently created,

@Buidhe: Since its a "list of" type page, what kind of sources would you be looking for in particular? Should be easy to find, as most (if not all) are on the article pages in question. I'm thinking a page along the lines of List of air forces or list of armies by country. Garuda28 (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Per

No. 1 Remote Sensor Unit or Allied Air Command are space forces). Looks like it will be a useful list though, thanks for starting it. buidhe

22:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that guidance existed - thanks! I'll get those added today. Garuda28 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Should be totally taken care of now! Garuda28 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Think: If an Air Force has its own signals, logistics, medical, military police, electronic warfare etc branch, and another one has outsourced all that into a joint support branch, and then you start comparing these Air Force's manpowers, wouldn't that be distorting? And all you have to say is "Air Forces" are "Air Forces"!? Well then, en.wiki... LKIT2 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The USSF flag has been revealed per this. What do we need to do to get an SVG version made? Should we just use the JPG version for now? Btw, I'm surprised they went with a black flag, as the seal uses a nice dark blue. - BilCat (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised as well. I was personally going to wait to upload to wikimedia till it got revealed on the official spaceforce.mil site (in case they post a higher resolution version), but using the Jpg shouldn't be a problem. Some editor will likely change it to Svg shortly after. Garuda28 (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I was actually surprised they went with dark blue on the seal instead of black, which is an obvious color for a space force, but the dark blue works well. - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Kudzu1 has just uploaded a JPG version at File:Flag of the United States Space Force.jpg. - BilCat (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw. Good on them for taking the initiative. If there is a higher resolution version we can just upload that as a new version (somehow...gotta find that out). Also if you or any talk page stalkers know how to add it to template:Space force, that would be very helpful! I've been poking around there for about an hour and am totally confused. Garuda28 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know either, as that's beyond my ken. Pinging the template creator, @Beyond My Ken:. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I played around with changing the background of the flag to dark blue, but I didn't like it. (Bad file, so I didn't post it.) Then I changed the seal's background to black. I think I like the black better. - BilCat (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

they should have hired you! That black seal looks beautiful. Garuda28 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That's about all I know how to do with SVG files. I'm an amateur flag designer for personal entertainment, but complex designs like that are beyond me. But I could've told them to use black. :) I thought the dark blue worked well before I saw the black. I have learned that sometimes a design seems good in my head good until I actually see it, and vice versa. - BilCat (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, wanted to upload an image cropped from US Air Force Academy yearbook. Are those in the public domain? --

@

AFLBulawan: It would be a work of the U.S. government, so my understanding is that they should be. What’s the image of, if I may ask? Garuda28 (talk

) 03:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding photos to some the articles of commanders other than their official photo and maybe add their yearbook photos if they are USAFA graduates. Would that be a good idea? --

talk

) 03:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah! I think that would be a great idea! I’m looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Garuda28 (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps under USAF the 30th Space Wing "was the range" in USAF history but the range was preexisting and has considerable history as the Navy Pacific Missile Range (PMR). That was addressed in the article you simply redirected without ensuring the target article had coverage or at least mention. Neither function nor existence of the range appeared out of nothing. That needs at least a mention in any "Range" discussion. I might agree to a thing, the range, equating to an organization with such coverage included, but not to obliterating the fact the range had previous history and "management." Palmeira (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Palmeira:I didn’t catch that when I merged that (despite all of that being covered on Vandenberg’s history website). Would you be open to the merge if the Army and Navy range history were added into the 30th Space Wing page? Should be fairly easy, since the source used on the range page for them is the same page used in the 30 SW page.Garuda28 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely open to merging the "thing" (the range) with the organization that is responsible for the range at any given time. Even the Vandenbeg coverage is not quite appropriate for that. The range was/is a system and locations. What service or organization building, managing and operating it is entirely separate. There is a real similarity with an airfield, perhaps built by the Navy, taken over by the USAAF and eventually the USAF. The field itself has a history, existence and description entirely separate from those organizations. As to PMR, the Army's period (Camp Cooke) had nothing that I remember to do with a "range" as such. The Navy's PMR, if I recall correctly, was established as a pre ballistic missile era range and continued into that era. PMR was pretty prominent in the Navy era with much restricted sea space during ops and impacts even on oil leasing. None of the articles really begin to cover that. I've had it on a way back burner for years. Take a look at one ready reference: A New National Range and the quote on page 70. Pacific Missile Range (PMR) was the "western" range in 1957 (the other two were the Atlantic Missile Range [Navy origins too if I recall] and White Sands [Army?]). If that range history is something you'd like to take on I'd be glad to help with references. By the way, the Navy installed the Missile Impact Locating System (MILS) in both ranges during a lull in SOSUS installations. MILS has some interesting history in singular events such as the suspected nuclear test in the far South Atlantic. Palmeira (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It certainly is something I'd be more interesting in learning about for sure! My big focus at the moment is creating and updating Space Force articles, and the ranges themselves are certainly integral parts of that. It also looks like they haven't been updated for years. Garuda28 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

They are barely sketches, dictionary entries, and sometimes misleading. I've touched on them a bit in some recent cable ship/cable/surveillance system stuff but only mentions. Essentially the Project Caesar assets, including cable manufacture, went toward connecting the range stations with communications and MILS after the initial phase of surveillance systems was done. Cables ran down to Ascension and out to the mid Pacific with MILS systems downrange. Then there were the Navy range instrumentation ships, some later becoming USAF ships, that supported the ranges. Though MILS and SOSUS were not the same at all MILS often observed the same "events" and was used in post time localization. Palmeira (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi.. refer to my edit on coast guards, it's true that we have discussion on this matter on

@Ckfasdf: Let’s have this discussion at United States Coast Guard, since that’s what this seems to be about. I’m also going to ping @Cuprum17: since they’re one of the SMEs on the U.S. Coast Guard on Wikipedia. We should have the debate in a public forum, but the essence of my argument is going to come down to its a military force and a military unit first and foremost. I think most of your other changes make sense, but I strongly disagree with this, so we'll have to see if consensus exists to support such a change, since the template could apply either way. (Oh, I forgot to mention that most coast guards are also not military branches, and that in particular makes the U.S. Coast Guard a unique case since it is a full fledged military branch) Garuda28 (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf:,@Garuda28:My stance on the issue of the U.S. Coast Guard AND its predecessor, the U.S. Revenue Marine Service is summed up by Title 14, Section 1, United States Code:

The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.

The Coast Guard is utilized as one of the armed services in the defense of the United States on a 24/7/365 basis. It has a military organizational structure and a military rank structure. Its personnel are subject to the provisions of the

Armed Forces of the United States in the defense of the United States. While the Revenue Marine Service was not covered by Title 14, its duties were mostly the same as the Coast Guard. The Revenue Marine Service had a military organizational structure, military ranks, military assignments, and served alongside the United States Army and United States Navy in the defense of the United States in most of the wars that occurred while it existed. There is no denying that it also had law enforcement duties, just like the Coast Guard has today. Much of the missions that both entities performed are law enforcement related, however, both entities trained daily in defense related activities and stood ready at a moments notice to defend United States interests around the world. The Coast Guard is both a law enforcement agency and a military service unique in the list of coast guards of the nations of the world. Most coast guards are law enforcement agencies of the country they represent. The U.S. Coast Guard is one of the few coast guards that do have full military responsibilities. The Revenue Marine Service was not just another customs service. For these reasons the infobox edit that Ckfasdf made should be reverted in my opinion. if it is necessary to have a discussion about this I suggest that this discussion be copied in its entirety to the talk page of the United States Revenue Cutter Service. Cuprum17 (talk

) 14:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@

Bofors 57 mm L/70 naval artillery gun, the Phalanx CIWS and the Mark 36 SRBOC. The U.S. Coast Guard has historically bought and converted U.S. Navy warships for their use, although that hasn't happened lately since the Coast Guard has now relied heavily on their own designed ships. However, the 'Legend-class cutters were partially designed from the Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Neovu79 (talk

) 09:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Neovu79:, Thank you for your comments, but as Garuda28 said it'll be better to have discussion on Talk:United States Revenue Cutter Service#Infobox change. I have put my argument there. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Garuda, I don't know if you remember, but back in March, you helped me sort out the Whiteman Air Force Base article because someone had copy-pasted a bunch of material there. I ended up rewriting most of the article. I just ran across a different article - The Omak-Okanogan County Chronicle - where it looks like most of the text was copy-pasted from here. Is it okay to just delete that text? Not sure what the proper way to proceed is, as that material is the bulk of the the article. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that should be done. I’d also request page protection, since it seems this isn’t the first time an IP added copyrighted material to the page in such a widespread manner. Garuda28 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Copy that! (no pun intended). Thanks. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop switching the flag. The flag that keeps being put up is the correct flag. If something is associated create a section on the page for it, but the main flag is the one that you keep taking down.

Cease edit warring per

WP:BRD and take your arguments to the talk page. Garuda28 (talk

) 02:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Garuda28, my apologies to tap on you, but any chance I can get you to chime in here - Just looking for some ideas on the lead (trying to keep it concise & grammatically correct) Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries! Happy to provide my 2 cents. Garuda28 (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Seal_Team_Six. Konli17 (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been doing a list of the commanders of the Space and Missile Systems Center and here's what I've come up with so far https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AFLBulawan/sandbox2 Is there any resource to check for a timeline of commanders of SMC or any other unit because so far I'm only cross-referencing it with secondary references, i.e. photos, press releases of the headquarter's website. --

@

AFLBulawan: I just checked the Air Force historical research agency, and unfortunately they haven’t published a record of that. Unless we can get a complete record going back to '61 (or to the founding of the modern SMC in '93) this could get tricky, since a partial list wouldn’t do us much good. I’m actually revamping the history section right now, so I’ll let you know if I come across anything that may be useful. @Lineagegeek: you seem to know where to find a lot of this kind of stuff. Any suggestions? Garuda28 (talk

) 03:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AFHRA does not publish Lineage and Honors online for units at this level (Center) unless they are SOAs or DRUs. If the center had published a heritage pamphlet that had been put online, that would usually contain a list of commanders. You could also look for an AFSC chronology, which might mention changes of command for its centers or divisions. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)--Lineagegeek (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)``

@

talk

) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@

AFLBulawan: You’ve impressed me. I didn’t think it was possible to find them all if were being honest. You deserve the honor of putting it on the page. Very well done! Garuda28 (talk

) 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Thanks! My only problem with it is when the center was historically split into two entities, I think with the current layout, it's not as clear that it is and it only looks like they're listed in a straight chronological order. Any suggestions?

@

AFLBulawan: Hmm. Not at the moment. I’ll mess with it and see if there’s a good way of partitioning it. Garuda28 (talk

) 17:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Garuda28: and @Maliepa: So here's my beef with the NDAA 2020, while it requires all services to publish three-star and four-star assignments to the general media, it leaves a back door for the Army not to announce them if they deem that announcing such assignments to be detrimental. So once again, they are taking full advantage of that loop hole and will not announce them, EVER. The DoD will sometimes announce Army general officer assignments to joint positions within the DoD, but lately, that's not a given due to the Army's intervention and their standing policy to not announce general officer assignments until AFTER the officer is confirmed by the Senate. At this point, they will never announce their general/flag officer assignments, like the other six armed services do now, as they follow the general provision of the law via NDAA 2020. And while I don't haven definitive proof of Dickinson's assignment as commander of USSPACECOM, I'm rarely wrong in my assumptions for the past six years, given the available information, and due to all four-star positions having specific career-patch and service requirements, by U.S. law, in order to be appointed to such positions. So while I don't actually agree with you removing the assignment info, I do understand why you did, just that we will not see eye-to-eye on that subject. As for LTG Cavoli, he is most likely going to be replacing GEN Miller as commander of U.S. Forces - Afghanistan, as Miller's two-year assignment as commander is coming to an end. Cavoli also has years of experience in Afghanistan. Neovu79 (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Neovu79: I'm going to defer to you on this one. I'd be shocked if his position isn't announced at the senate hearing, but this one will be interesting to watch. Garuda28 (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We'll leave it alone I guess. I just hate seeing all these No Announcement under the positions tad, when we know that they would not be appointed or reappointed to four-star rank without already there being a corresponding assignment. Neovu79 (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop [2] removing a very rare public reference to very low-profile units!! We add refs, not remove them!! Buckshot06

Buckshot06 Appologies - I did not realized I removed a reference, rather it seemed more like commentary on a non special operations forces unit. Shouldn’t refs like that either be in an extra sources section in the bottom or in a foot note using Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).? Looking though my history I didn’t realize I removed that before and then was reverted by you, my apologies. I did not intend to go around you like that. Garuda28 (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Will you get over it? They are military, special (unconventional), just non combat. They're all closely associated with JSOC's combat units. If you had read the section you removed properly, you would see that it was intended as an introduction to the entire list of special non-combat units - it's practically the only wikipedia-standard RS for all of them!! Yes, I could used the same footnote at the end of each line, or, saved everybody's time by a single introductory paragraph. Leave it alone!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Buckshot06 my edit was made in good faith, and I am not demonstrating any ill will or am engaging in an edit war that would disrupt the article, so please show a little bit more patience with me. I misunderstood the purpose of the section, and frankly was not aware that that was a litigate way to cite, so please take a step back and try to educate me on this so I can better myself in the future. I’ve now learned, and will ensure I don’t make the same mistake again. I’m very open to learning and feedback. Garuda28 (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remote the career paths and special Divisions I added? Defensor Honoris (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove the career paths and special Divisions I added? Defensor Honoris (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you know what AFSOCJTAC means? A new user has just created an account by that name, and I wanted to make sure it didn't violate COI and Username by implying an official account. I'm.also trying to avoid biting a new user by overreacting. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably Air Force Special Operations Command Joint Tactical Air Controller. It’s not an organization, so I don’t think it’s a problem unless they start making it clear that they’re representing AFSOC. Garuda28 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that's what I needed to know. - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I knew what AFSOC and JTAC meant separately, but I wasn't sure if it mean an organization when used together like that. - BilCat (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, is there a particular reason why you used an unabbreviated service branch for the deputy commander and senior enlisted leader in the commanders section in

Gwnerally that’s the format for info boxes because it keeps it more consist. It would be much more unwieldily to say U.S. Space Force in the confined space rather than USSF. It’s also the widely used format in the service branches. Garuda28 (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait. I misunderstood. It was to match the commander’s service branch format; and yes, it would be possible. Garuda28 (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Garuda28, you are familiar with Template:Infobox military unit (MU) and Template:Infobox law enforcement agency (LEA) - WikiProject Military discussion in March and United States Revenue Cutter Service discussion last month. I've designed a law enforcement unit infobox User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/doc. Help:Infobox and Help:Designing infoboxes - I'm supposed to seek comment, and as Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement is inactive, I have to contact editors directly. Can you please review it - anything you would change, add, suggest, etc.. It will be similar to military using Template:Infobox national military then for units MU. There is User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/testcases for testing.--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You're already on this, I see https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2287005/space-force-begins-transition-into-field-organizational-structure. Tell me what help you need. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point, honestly for the Space Force to provide some clarity on some of these things. They seem to be very inconsistent over if these are new organizations (the verbiage in the ceremony said that the current wings and units were being inactivated) or if these are a continuation of previous units (like Buckley Garrison saying on their fact sheet that it was just a re designation). My thought is to treat them as totally new units, and then if they decide that its just a redesignation we can merge pages later. @

AFLBulawan: has been doing a great job creating the delta pages. My thoughts is that we create pages for the deltas/garrison commands as soon as they have enough information available. One other thing to note is that it doenst seem that the garrison commands are renaming the bases, but depending on the Space Force website they seem to be internally confused on the usage (some say they are headquarted at a garrison but others still reference the Air Force bases). Garuda28 (talk

) 22:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@

talk

) 23:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

While I do think we could glean some insights, a quick search through seems to indicate the are just as confused as the rest of us on this one. Garuda28 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The usage of Peterson-Schriever Garrison,across two separate geographical locations, makes it clear that Garrisons are *units and formations* in WP terms, not Category:Military installations. "..aligns installation support functions within garrisons. Air Force expertise, units and personnel will execute installation support functions under the command of the O-6 garrison commander through Air Force mission support groups, medical groups, and special staff." (from above linked page). But the USAF and USSF are still sorting this out, and both the Colorado installations are full of interagency and multinational activities, inc NORAD, so it will take a long of time to iron out the bureaucratic details on how this all works. I agree completely with Garuda28 saying we can hold off. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review

WP:SMALLCAT; there should no categories created for anything under 20 members, says that rule, though I usually work with 10 or so plus. Buckshot06 (talk)

00:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually didn't know such guidelines existed. I'll take a look. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I could clearly see that; if I were to have nitpicked, Category:Field commands of the United States Space Force would have been up for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:SMALLCAT for since it follows the general categorization scheme for military subunits, which I think would fall under "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". For garrison commands I'm expecting at least two more (Vandy and Cape Canaveral/Patrick). Once we get enough to fit the schema I don't think we should have a huge problem, but while we only have one I agree, doesn't need its own cat. Garuda28 (talk

) 00:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That may or may not be true. But there's *absolutely no need* to go at a million miles an hour on this -

WP:NOTNEWS. Everything will happily live in the main category for a while without creating categories that may or may not last. Buckshot06 (talk)

00:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You're certainly right on this - we can and should take our time to see what sticks. Garuda28 (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Garuda,

Some editors peristently keep pushing POV by readding nonexistent bases to Pakistan and Turkey in the List of countries with overseas military bases. See my comments on talkpage there. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there needs to be a consensus for this. I would greatly appreciate your input, for or against. :) Neovu79 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen this edit? I tried to read the PDF the IP cites, but I couldn't get through the milspeak. (I didn't spend much time on it, as I'm still trolling through my watchlist.) Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like conflicting guidance from the Air Force. I’m personally inclined to ignore it until DOD guidance comes out, as it’s not DOD wide and also not how the presentation of flags has actually been. Garuda28 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense to me. BilCat (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I was looking for a page that would just be a list of combat jumps. Originally I was trying to figure out if there was a way to know which US soldier in WWII had the most but I don't think that is possible unless it happens to be someone famous like Lew Nixon. Regardless I think it would be interesting and useful in its own right. Cheers 96.240.128.124 (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from its website, "U.S. Naval Institute" is it's official name, and probably the most common one also, yet the article is at United States Naval Institute. Do you know anything about it? BilCat (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s a think tank/professional association. Think of them as a professional association that supports the Navy, but isn’t directly affiliated with it or the U.S. government, kind of like the Air Force Association or the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Garuda28 (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking about the title. :) I realize now it was a vague question. BilCat (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, no worries! Technically speaking it’s the United States Naval Institute, but is usually referred to as the U.S. Naval Institute or USNI. Garuda28 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Given "U.S. Naval Institute" is what appears on its seal/logo, in its copyright notice, and what's elsewhere on the site, and if that's what it's usually referred to as, I'd say it's the most common name. (USNI is probably to vague.) Should I be bold and move it, or propose a move instead? BilCat (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t feel strongly about it one way or the other. I’d say go for it if you’d like; I doubt anyone is gonna have an issue with the move since it’s clearly the common name. Only think I can think of that could be an issue is abbreviations in the page name. Garuda28 (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I see our "friend" is still refusing to drop the sitck about DMY formats. Most the responses have reiterated what we already told him before, and he still doesn't let go. Sigh. I've considered chiming in again, but I'd just be repeating what's already been said over and over to no avail. BilCat (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see it going anywhere. Even if they were correct, there is no way to change the format of literally thousands of articles for what is no benefit. At this point just standardize with what we have (which has been the overwhelming consensus of military history editors for much longer than I’ve been on here) Garuda28 (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I know we’ve had our disagreements but I think the current version is the best one. It doesn’t paint them as infantry as infantry holds ground and attacks and defends whereas secfor more defends. Hopefully this version stays . Cowsthatfloat (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I’ve actually been trying to uphold our consensus on the topic. Garuda28 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User Silverdragon3002 changed content in that article Military, content is about rankings of a militaries by country according to Credit Suisse. User removed that source and added something called globalfirepower what seems as a just some type of blog as a source. Please if you can check it, it seems pretty messy.178.222.117.254 (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 21st Fighter Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taiwanese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		WikiProject Notification

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thought you would find this interesting: [3]

So, it looks like 14 AF was redesignated Space Operations Command, but is now being inactivated and transferring its assets to a newly constituted Space Operations Command. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lineagegeek: Thank you! Yeah, this is making a lot more sense now. Not sure if you saw my post on the USSF talk page, but it looks like things are going to get a lot more interesting for us. At the inactivation ceremony, they announced that they're action partitioning the lineage/history of 14 AF, with the aviation side staying with the Air Force and the space side (I'm assuming the 14th Aerospace Force time and time in AFSPC) being assumed by SpOC West. It makes the most sense to me, but it'll probably require some page partitions when more details are announced. Garuda28 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Armed Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey. Just as an FYI, most if not all pages which shows national rank templates has "The rank insignia for commissioned officers for the army, navy and air force respectively." written in some form or another. Making your change unnecessary. Additionally, there are now 247 templates with full names and 1072 templates without, resulting in inconsistency between the templates, as seen on Comparative army officer ranks of Europe. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I didn’t realize there were more used together. I still think this provides the templates with some additional flexibility in usage in the main space (its usage on Ranks of Albania is what spurred me to do it), so if it’s okay with you, I am willing to go through the remaining 1072 manually? Garuda28 (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you might have a point. Sure, go ahead. You can find all the templates here. Skjoldbro (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! That‘ll be my project for the week; I’ll try to standardize the "edit" button capitalization throughout as well. Garuda28 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment...In your recent edit summary of the United States Coast Guard, you mention that "Deputy SELs generally aren’t considered among the top leadership of a service". That may be true of the other armed services, but not the Coast Guard. While I agree with the reasoning of your edit, the Coast Guard is a different animal when compared to any of the other services. (The Space Force is too new to make that kind of judgment.) The Coast Guard is so small that anyone that has served more than a couple of enlistments can not go to a new duty assignment without running into others that they have served with before at another station or cutter. I served in the Coast Guard for 18 years and any duty station that I was assigned, there were at least a half a dozen people that I knew from other duty assignments. It is indeed a small service. This is not a criticism of your edit, just a comment on the one of the many differences between the Coast Guard and its sister services. I totally agree with you about whether the deputy senior enlisted need to be listed in an infobox. They don't...TMI! They wouldn't be listed for the Army so why the Coast Guard? But...I guess my point is that sometimes things within the Coast Guard are significant to the Coast Guard but it wouldn't make a damn in the larger services. Thank you for the edit you have made and the hundreds of other edits on military articles. Without your edits, many of the service articles would be a jumbled mess. I am just taking the opportunity to tell you to keep on fighting the good fight. Cheers. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! When it comes to the Coast Guard and the Space Force I really try to be sensitive to their small nature - they aren't exactly like the other services and you are 100% right that just because it's on the Army or Air Force page doesn't mean it would work there. And thank you for your work as well. It brings a smile to my face to see people screenshot wikipedia on twitter to try to help make a point that the Space Force is not just some new creation or that the Coast Guard is actually part of the armed forces. I fear how many misconceptions there would be without what we've done here on wikipedia - and maybe a little shocked to see how the perception of thousands of people (if not more) are shaped by less than a dozen editors. Garuda28 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree...have a great day! Cuprum17 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Mate

I amended the Tile of the RANK to Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force as that is the RANK. Where as the OFFICE/POSITION is titled Senior Enlisted Advisor of the Space Force. The USSF unlike the other 5 branches are potentially separating the rank from the Office.

I made the change based on this facebook image where he signs the slip of paper as CMSSF #1 https://www.facebook.com/SEASpaceForce/photos/a.113666273639089/170459147959801/

--Hawkeyebasil (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

We're going to need something more solid first. Let's wait until the official ranks are released - I'm sure that will make obvious what the intent is. Garuda28 (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

By any chance are you able to make the rank tables you added, collapsible? It just seems like a lot to look at for an article about the overall U.S. military. Also, I personally would have preferred to only cover their rank structures in that greater detail only in each of the individual service pages as they currently are there. A cursory mention or link to "see main articles" in this article would have sufficed. Having them on United States Armed Forces just seems kind of redundant. Neovu79 (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Should be able to make them collapsible. Let me look into seeing how to do that. I think there is value in having some form of comparative rank table there to show how the different services have equivalency, but having six does create more problems. Garuda28 (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Neovu79: Did some digging and got them collasped. What do you think? I know the shading seems a little off on the sea services, and though I'm not sure why, it highlights them differently so I'm okay with it. Garuda28 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes. That makes it look a lot less unencumbered. Thank you. Neovu79 (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, You keep doing a blanket delete of the page, removing pictures and information that is actually sourced, but keep saying it’s not sourced. For instance, you keep deleting all of the battles/wars that they’ve been actively involved in, but that information comes from Air Force Manuals. You keep deleting the section displaying the Beret flash it’s description as well as the text stating that the Air Force expects security forces to be first in and fit to fight, which was taken right out of official documentation. Also, many sources have referred to Security Forces as the Air Force’s “infantry”, (not Army Infantry, there’s a differentiation there) including their “Top Cop”, Brigadier General Andrea Tullos who stared “we size up to the Army’s lightest of light infantry” which is documented. Can we go through the information and at least stop completely discrediting these guys? User60314 (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

See my reply on the talk page. Some of the information is sourced, but so full of buzzwords that it detracts from the article. Garuda28 (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thought you might find

Honestly, it’s long past time I do that. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@

Thewolfchild: Gonna be honest...I think I just epicly failed. Garuda28 (talk

) 20:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Lol!... what? How so? -

wolf

20:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I copied over one of the bot’s to the top of my page and it’s giving me a red link XD Garuda28 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Personally, I think the bots can be hit and miss. But someone more versed in them would likely say otherwise. I don't even archive my page, I just blank it (dives some of the wikirazzi nuts!). I do however manually archive a lot of article talk pages, I can help you do that here here if you want. I just mentioned it because it was getting pretty big -

wolf

20:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries! I think I’ll find someone who does the bot on their page and see if they’ve got some advice. I do appreciate it though! Garuda28 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No problemo. Good luck! -

wolf

20:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

For the Navy and Coast Guard apprenticeship rank (E-1 to E-3), a fireman apprentice is still a seaman apprentice by rank. Fireman apprentice is the Navy's job/rate title for a seaman apprentice in the fireman community. The same thing goes for an person who is a airman apprentice. That person is still holding the rank of seaman apprentice. When a fireman is promoted to petty officer third class, they hold the title fireman third class, etc. If they are promoted to chief petty officer, they hold the title chief fireman. The different colors for fireman and airman are considered job colors only. I think it would be less cluttered for the table, if it only included the most common job rating and rank color for the chevrons. So for E-1 to E-3 would be white as it is the most common color as that main community separates into dozens of job ratings. Also red chevrons through petty officer first class would be appropriate and most of the time they hit 12 years of service while in the middle of holding that rank after a couple of years. Neovu79 (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah,okay - I think I misunderstood that (didn’t realize your background was Navy!)Garuda28 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Neovu79: should be done! Also, I'm not 100% sure of the process, but while I'm on a rank spree, what are your thoughts of merging the different U.S. enlisted and officer rank insignia articles in into a single one for each service al la the Space Force and Marine Corps? With a quick clean up for most it would seem they'd actually compliment each other better that way. Garuda28 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well I wasn't in the Navy, I was a civilian contractor working for them for a few years. I would not consider myself an expert, but I have a good general knowledge of Navy structure. The problem I face all the time is finding proper sourcing as to not appear completely biased, lol. When it comes to merging those other rank articles, I don't see why not as it seems like a waste of space having them in separate articles. Neovu79 (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a follow up with this, for better understanding I did a little more digging, to learn why the Navy originally chose colors for the ratings and enlisted ranks of fireman and airmen since I originally based a lot of my conclusions from past experience and what is written in the List of United States Navy enlisted rates article, which was designated as a featured article. I looked up information on E-1 to E-3 Navy grades on the Naval History and Heritage Command, Military.com and [PBS.org] and it's still a bit confusing to me. It appears the Navy use the term "rates or ratings" in substitute for the term "ranks" and for enlisted paygrades E1 to E-3, they are inextricably linked to their job or career paths. E-1 to E-3 are apprenticeships ranks and there are many different career paths (ratings) beyond that of seaman, firemen, hospitalman, etc. So in essence there are at least a dozen "ranks/rates" for E-1 to E-3 and they are all equal so a fireman recruit (E-1) does not outrank a seaman recruit (E-1), unlike master chief and command master chief. So it appears the Navy lists on their rank charts, only the seaman rate, from E-1 to E-3 as it is the most common initial career path for an enlisted sailor, and due to there being way too many rates to account for. Neovu79 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Space Force, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Hopkins and Air University.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

		Military Barnstar
		In recognition of all the effort you have been putting into military articles, including the collaborating you have done on the talk pages. Your good work hasn't gone unnoticed, so keep it up! Cheers - wolf 06:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@

Thewolfchild: Wow! This is my first one! Thank you so much! Honestly this means a lot coming from you. I know I’ve said it before, but I’m happy to have you back with the project! Garuda28 (talk

) 06:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Here is a userbox of same for userpages. If you want it, just copy the markup over. Cheers -

wolf

07:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That's sad... I was looking forward to adding another naval rank structure to the uniformed service rank tables. However, just because Congress isn't forcing them to adopt naval ranks, it doesn't mean that they won't adopt them eventually. Who knows, LOL. Also, did you see that GEN

That one is weird! I did not notice that. Yeah, I was fully expecting it to fail, to be honest. Guess we‘ll just have to see what they release. Garuda28 (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe you will find that General LaCamera is handing over command of USFK to another four-star, and will not become a reservist, instead, becoming commander of United States Army Reserve Command. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing this edit? I reverted it for a couple reasons; first it caught my attention as it was marked as "minor" when it obviously was not, but also because it completely re-wrote a section, removing info about the Chief of Staff, and content that was part of the attached ref, as well as the tone and meaning of the section.

But that said, there was other info added, with an additional ref. (I don't want to just dismiss this, but trying to collaborate with this editor is... difficult. I don't want to see the whole thing spiral into a dog's breakfast, over a single edit.) If you could take a look at the edit and the ref, see if you think it's worthwhile, then go from there. It would be appreciated. Cheers -

I took a quick look at it - I don’t have a huge issue with it. Garuda28 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Think you're ahead of me -- https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2441804/2-famed-bases-re-designated-to-highlight-space-force-connection/. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Always on the move! This one is gonna be an interesting one to try to clean up over the next few months. Garuda28 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space Training and Readiness Delta (Provisional), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mycroft.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Er, sorry, the distinguished and notable Guardians of the Space Force ;) I swear, what a choice!!Buckshot06 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I just burst out laughing! Their call and response better start and end with "I am Groot" and then "Groot, I am". Marvel AND Star Wars crossover right there! Garuda28 (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For being a pleasure to work with over at United States Space Force. You've worked with me and others to address multiple talk page concerns. You've been open to trimming large parts of the article. You've added paragraphs of high quality content. I was expecting battles for some of this stuff, but in each case you immediately saw our root concerns and were an absolute pleasure to work with. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Any time! I think it's a better article because of the different perspectives added! Garuda28 (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thought Space Delta 7 was the new member of the intelligence community? L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@L'amateur d'aéroplanes: https://spacenews.com/space-force-stands-up-new-office-to-support-u-s-intelligence-community/. Based on looking at the IC community website as well, I think that the article is wrong and fielded units (like 16th Air Force) aren’t the IC members, but rather the totally IC community in the branch (led by their staff 2 element) is. Garuda28 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps an administrative structure to represent the Space Force at the level of other branch (even the Coast Guards are there ...).? L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the Air Force does the same thing. The IC website lists the AF ISR Enterprise as the org rather than 16 AF (probably includes both ops units and staff under it). Garuda28 (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the change and was gonna ask about that as well. So the ISR Enterprise is different than the Delta 7 ISR and it's the first one that is part of the IC? That's 100% certain? -

wolf

19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

hm, I see

wolf

08:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@

Thewolfchild: I took a look at the sourced website and copied over the information there as best I could, but hyperlinked the prime intel organization (really; exactly the same thing they do there). In essence, the website defines the navy and MC intelligence communities as beyond ONI/MCIA to include the staffs and Intel members who are not part of those organizations. Garuda28 (talk

) 14:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, that fair, but I think it's also pretty standard that if you will have intel officers from anywhere in a parent organization contributing to the work of of the IC. That would be so with the two examples you cited, ONI & MCIA, but it is also so that those two agencies are specifically named as members of the IC. That's why those agencies are listed, as opposed to just "Navy intelligence" and "Marine intelligence" and why those agencie's seals were listed in the image column. I still don't see the value, or need, to replace those images with the main branch seals, nor why the Army's Military Intelligence Corps was replaced with the generic "Army Intelligence", and again the swapping of the seals. Why not extend that. Instead of the DEA ONSI, just put "drug intelligence", and for the FBI's IB, put "law enforcement intelligence", and so on for the entire community? Like I said, I get that staff from outside the specific agencies also work with the IC, but I just don't see the leap you've made made with those changes. -

wolf

19:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The difference in this case would be that there are significant intelligence elements outside these specific organizations (both staff and field) that are specifically included in the services intelligence communities. It’s not as straightforward as the other departments, where specific offices like ONSI are made members of the Intel community, as the website states that the entirety of a services intelligence apparatus (not just those central agencies) is part of the IC community. It would seem listing the specific agencies for the military services was an error to begin with, since the IC website doesn’t list those offices as their IC elements - rather they are part of the larger IC elements within those services, including other field elements and staff. Garuda28 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@

Thewolfchild: If you head to the talk section on the IC page I think I've neatly outlined my thoughts. The bottom line is that it appears that the IC leads are the staff 2 elements, not the offices themselves (which is what differentiates them from the other civilian agencies) Garuda28 (talk

) 22:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why did you revert my point about the credibility of Space Force being linked to people's view of Trump? His involvement directly influences opinions on the value of Space Force. This is very pertinent to the reception that Space Force has received; which was the section to which I made my addition. There was no need to remove my valid point. Kindly put it back Bluenose Gunner (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It is an over simplification of the article in question and is never directly stated in the article that the credibility of the space force is linked to people's views of trump. We already have a section that states that the idea of a space force is popular with his supporters. Garuda28 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Article clearly says that for much of the public Space Force is seen as a Trump vanity project. Exactly my point. Please put my statement back Bluenose Gunner (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding such a statement without the context in the rest of the article would be misleading. I have added the new content from the article with the context that it was provided with. Garuda28 (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I am having to work from a smart phone with limited capability. If you would return my original post I am willing to change it to reflect the vanity project wording. Are you willing to do this? Bluenose Gunner (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ve already added that specific section with context and merged it into the appropriate paragraph. Garuda28 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Garuda28, what I saw at User:Garuda28/sandbox2 was amazing!! Great work!! However, respectfully, I think it would be better titled "History of U.S. military space activities" or some such, because it was primarily Air Force and others, and Space Force actually popped up only at the end of the story. Can't wait to see it finished and mainspaced!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I think I'm gonna stick with the history of the Space Force on this one, because it’s directly tired to the Space Forces history (exactly like how the history of the Air Force includes its 40 years under the Army and the exact same units and missions that this history focuses on are part of the Space Force today, like the WDD and 1 SOPS). It’s really weird, because this is being written in 2021 and those Air Force space activities are now the direct predecessor to the Space Force activities, just like how Army aviation prior to 1947 is considered to be Air Force rather than Army. It would be as if our history of the Air Force article was written in 1948 and included almost exclusively the history of the Army Air Forces and prior! Pretty crazy, since it would seem the story is just beginning. Garuda28 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever story the U.S. Air Force may have spread for 50 years plus, you and I both know that before 1947 the Army Air Forces, Air Corps, etc, were part of the United States Army. That won't and doesn't change; I have made my point about trying to maintain historical accuracy. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the United States Space Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Missile Range.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"The rank was originally known as the Senior Enlisted Advisor of the Space Force until it was renamed on 1 October 2021." ???? BilCat (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for re-ordering the paragraphs -- I was doing the same thing but you beat me to it, so I'm glad we can agree on that at least as a temporary compromise (especially at this moment when more people are looking at the article and trying to figure out what Space Force actually is).

I may continue seeking to improve the lede in coming days, or I may lose interest, not sure yet. But I appreciate that you and (it looks like) a few others have put a ton of work into the article and I don't mean to be antagonistic. I was simply bothered that, like all those other people, I decided to check the Space Force article tonight to try to get a better idea of what SF is, and then on the second sentence it started talking about things happening in the 40s and 50s and my brain went "this is irrelevant to me I'm no longer interested I'm putting my phone down." Anyway, thanks again for the compromise and have a good night. Theoldsparkle (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly it was your edit that made me realized that it was ordered wrong (the flow certainly was confusing, which you helped me realize). My thought with adding it was to help people realize that the history of the Space Force goes back decades before this year and wasn't just a "vanity project" that appeared out of thin air as some simplify it to be (much as in the same way as the Air Force goes back to 1907), so I think it works better with the swapped paragraphs. Have a good night and I hope you come back! Garuda28 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Just to let you know, I rollbacked your action on

^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$}

As I'm sure you saw in your watchlist, there was bout of vandalism on the SF page last week. The page was protected, but I wanted to point you to the

Thanks for the heads up! Garuda28 (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, can you point me to the consensus you mentioned in this edit? Thanks -

@

Thewolfchild: On this talk page Template talk:US enlisted ranks. Garuda28 (talk

) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I see there was some discussion on that page, mostly between Neovu79 and oknazevad, about... stuff, and I see there was also a brief comment or two by you, but I'm looking for the specific discussion about red-on-gold vs drab-on-drabier USMC enlisted rank insignia and the clear-cut consensus that somehow chose the later. Seriously, they look awful. They're difficult to see, especially on smaller devices, and this could be an issue where those who are visually impaired needs to be taken into consideration. Where are you on this? -

wolf

20:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it was that discussion thread plus the edits that established the consensus (someone later made the change from the dress blues to the service rank on the Marines pages). I really don’t care which way it goes, so long as there is standardization. @Neovu79: you’ve paid attention to this topic a whole lot more than me, do you know if there were any other discussion threads on the topic that established consensus? Garuda28 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The general conclusion that we came to was to list all enlisted ranks, for each branch, with the rank insignia of their everyday business uniforms, which is their service uniforms respectively. While the Marine Corps gold-on-red insignias do look more appealing, the insignias are used on their dress uniforms and not their service uniforms. Neovu79 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@

wolf

19:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Anything on this yet? Not urgent, just checking in. Thanks -

wolf

19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem distinguishing the ranks on a smartphone and I would be opposed to changing it back. The colors are what they are and the Marine Corps probably have, or should have, taken visual impairment into account before they chose that color scheme for their service uniform. The ranks were changed to conform with the enlisted uniform ranks on the other U.S. Armed Forces articles as well as the templates. The service uniforms are the primary professional uniforms for each service. Neovu79 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Neovu79: "I have no problem distinguishing the ranks on a smartphone..." - No offense, but this isn't about how well you can see them. We should be taking others into account as well, no?

"...and I would be opposed to changing it back" - why so adamant about it?
"The colors are what they are and the Marine Corps probably have, or should have, taken visual impairment into account before they chose that color scheme for their service uniform." - but this isn't the Marines, it's WP. And there is a difference between a full size patch on an actual uniform and an image that's only a couple millimeters in size on phone.
"The ranks were changed to conform with the enlisted uniform ranks on the other U.S. Armed Forces articles as well as the templates" - the operative word being "changed". If they can be changed one way, they be changed another, no?
"The service uniforms are the primary professional uniforms for each service" - well, the dress uniforms are just as professional, if not arguably more so. They're certainly more representational, consider what the service uniforms are used for and what the dress uniforms are used for. But that's not even the main crux of this, as I said, I'm just asking for the whereabouts of the consensus that led to the change. You have both mentioned (or alluded) to it. Perhaps it'll help me understand why you're so entrenched on this. Thanks again -

@

wolf

02:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@

Thewolfchild: I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or another. If you and @Neovu79: come to an consensus on something, I will gladly support it. Garuda28 (talk

) 02:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved to

wolf

23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Joint Chiefs of Staff

My edit of this article was purely grammatical. It had nothing to do with the status of the various members of the Joint Chiefs. The grammatical rule has to do with parallelism. The term "service chiefs" applies to the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. The representative of the NGB is referred to as a "chief." So there are three grammatically correct ways to write the list:

1. the service chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and National Guard Bureau

2. the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and National Guard Bureau

3. the service chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force, and the chief of the National Guard Bureau

In #3, you need the second "and" to avoid a violation of parallelism. The grammatical shape of # 3 is:

      the service chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force 

      and

      the chief of the National Guard Bureau  

Again, this is only a grammatical point. It has nothing to do with the status of these officers. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by P.D. (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

Please do not make controversial moves without discussing them first. This is not acceptable per

WP:COMMONNAME[4] (t · c) buidhe

21:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes a person doesn't realize there will be a disagreement until afer they make the move. Garuda generally makes very good edits, and I

assume that he did this move in good faith. Hindsights always 20/20, and I've. done things like this before, only to realize later that I ought to have known better. :) BilCat (talk

) 21:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:COMMONNAME for the titles, unless you would like to specifically contest the sources? Garuda28 (talk

) 21:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't doubt your good faith but please get consensus before making mass edits that may be contested or moving high profile articles. (t · c) buidhe 21:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Kudos for Space command article

Just wow! Well done!! Morgengave (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help! I’ve honestly been meaning to do that for awhile, so thanks for the friendly push! Garuda28 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for moving.

Just wanted to say thanks for moving the Vandenberg Space Force Base article. Right decision. osunpokeh (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Cyber Branch (United States Army)

I just ran across

Cyber Branch (United States Army) while trying to answer a question at Template talk:US Army navbox#Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021. United States Army Cyber Command is already linked in the navbox, so I'm wondering if this is what the user is referring to. Unfortunately, the Cyber Branch article has minimal content, and really doesn't adequately explain what it is or what it does. Thanks. BilCat (talk

) 03:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

So Cyber Branch (the user called it a corps incorrectly) is one of the Army’s basic branches. Basically a personnel category. It’s distinct from ARCYBER (and operational command) so I’ve added it in the appropriate place! Garuda28 (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I assumed that might be what they meant, but didn't want to add it without checking first. BilCat (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Space Development Agency

Hi G, have you seen Space Development Agency? It probably needs some navboxes, but I'm not sure which ones would be best. The article states the SDA is supposed to become part of the USSF, so should it be added somewhere on a USSF navbox? Also, one sentence has 26!! references, some of which are used elsewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where to start. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I have not yet! (Thank you!) I’ll take a look at it. Right now it’s part of DOD, but congressional legislation states it will move to USSF (but not yet, at least). Garuda28 (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, anytime you have the time is fine. BilCat (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Space force installations article.

I see you removed pillar point from the map, I reverted the changes back to before. However, if you do have a source or reason as to why it should be removed please put it in the edit summary next time.CJBruh (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The Word you're Looking For

... might be "rebuttal." (in your fight over Trump's disparagement of the dead.)

Incidentally, you're credible and White isn't, given Trump's comments on McCain being taken prisoner.

Cheers, David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

1. ^ "Dowling's Story: Dick Dowling and Sabine Pass in History and Memory". Woodson Research Center. Rice University. April 3, 2012. Retrieved April 27, 2020.