User talk:McChizzle

HSC-85

Thanks for helping take care of the page. As a heads up we will be doing a major revision to the history section this week or next. I am part of the current leadership of the unit. Fl021518 (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Combat Aircrew Badge

Done. And thanks for the heads up. If you notice any others, let me know and I will try to correct them. SGT141 (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Anytime. SGT141 (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religious symbolism in the United States military

Dear McChizzle, Thanks for adding the Navy version of the Buddhist chaplain insignia. I wanted to let you know that I am looking for: The Air Force Chapel Flag (supposedly kept in all USAF chapels) and the Air Force Chaplain School flag. Also, I am looking for better versions of the two oldest versions of the USN Chaplain School emblem. Same goes for the 2nd of three different Army Chaplain Corps branch plaques. (You'll see in the article that the versions I have are not the best). I'm mentioning these, just in case you might be able to help! Thanks!! NearTheZoo (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Washingtonian. I will keep my eyes open for the flags and plaques. If I find anything I'll let you know. -McChizzle (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great -- and thanks! It has been a real labor of love putting this article together, and a learning process for me, even though I thought I knew a lot when I began. And yes, I am a rare bird in DC: actually born here, returning after retirement from the military. Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar

Thanks for your recent edit. I'm glad you're proactive with items such as this and your initiative is greatly appreciated. Your edit provokes discussion and research, and for that I award you this Barnstar. However, the Scuba Diver Badge is not obsolete, yet. The "Scuba Bubble" is still still worn today as a Group 5 Special Skill badge IAW AR 670-1 (see figure 29-48 on page 296). Bullmoosebell (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your nice response to the undoing of my contribution. I understand why you changed my edit. The AR you reference is out of date. For this specific topic, I recommend reviewing the TIOH page on this subject. Although the Army Scuba Diver Badge has been replaced, those soldiers that have been awarded the now obsolete Scuba Badge may continue to wear it on the Army uniform.

Many of the badges listed on the obsolete badges page under the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard sections are badges that are no longer awarded but may still be worn on the uniform. If your definition of an obsolete badge means that the badge can no longer be worn, then your definition appears to differ from other "Wikipedian" or some major cleanup needs to be performed on the page.

I will wait a few days before I revert your change so you can respond to my comment and convince me otherwise. Respectfully, McChizzle (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concede. Good edit. The AR I found via US Army (Army Pubs, AKO, HRC) may be the latest they publish, but there's more to consider. A friend of mine is a 12D (Dive), apparently they're still issuing the badge to all E5 and below (because they're Simple Scuba, or Basic Engineer Diver) whom graduate from SCUBA school in Florida. Much like NCOA schools, IOT become a Dive E-6, you must graduate from your selected qual school (Spec Ops, Salvage, etc).

AR 670-1 should be the trump-card. However, without more literature (MilPer Messages & HQDA Letters), I don't feel comfortable leaving this subject in limbo. I work at Ranger School (Fort Benning) and a few of my buddies are DMT & DMO (Dive Med Tech & Dive Med Officer) at FBGA & Florida. Until I confer with them, feel free to revert my change & accept my deepest appreciation in regards to this matter. Bullmoosebell (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ETSed from the 7th SFG(A) back in the late 90s, so I'm out of date on what is actually happening down in Florida. If you have a friend that was awarded "the bubble" recently (after Sep. 04), then that's good reason to not undue your change. I look forward to reading about what you learn from your friends that are in the community today. Thanks, in advance, for taking the time to look into this and for your service to our country. Respectfully, McChizzle (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullmoosebell, after you have verify the status of the Army Scuba Diver Badge, one of us should update the Diver insignia page with the correct information. --McChizzle (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Bell, I found the official answer we have been looking for. Take a look at AHRC-PDO-PA Oct 04, AR600-8-22 8-19 (page 108), and AR611-75 2-12 (pages 6-7) and 2-15 through 2-19 (pages 9-12). Based on these ARs, I'm going to "undo" the change on the obsolete badges page. --McChizzle (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ram's Head Device

Thanks for all your help with this troublesome entry. The Ram's Head Device entry has had to deal with both the overly-official editors who want to delete it (because it is only a quasi-official military badge) as well as the want-to-be-official editors (who want to make the badge seem more official than it really is). I personally appreciate your help keeping the entries dealing with the Ram's Head Device both informative and truthful. -Atfyfe (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likwise Atfyfe, likewise. Who knows, maybe someday the U.S. Army may authorize the badge. I know a lot of my former 7th SFG(A) brethren would love to be able to wear this badge which they earned. --McChizzle (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CIB, CMB, CAB fourth award

Are you sure about the fourth award for these badges? It seems that the Army shows on one of their websites.

http://www.army.mil/symbols/CombatBadges/infantry.html

Articseahorse (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articseahorse, all I can say is that when I was in the Army, I was required to follow and enforce Army Regulations and Directives vs. the IOH and other ".mil" websites. There are many ".mil" pages that have errors, as do the Army Regulations and Directives we tried to follow. To avoid having officers and soldiers within the same unit wearing the same badges and awards differently, unit commanders are authorized to prescribe the manner of wear when regulations and directives were unclear. See my response to Collectorofinsignia's talk page for more details.

Since my information is becoming dated, if you have newer information that contradicts what I have said, please let me know for I want to keep up to date. --McChizzle (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:USCG Data Processing Technician Rating Badge.jpg

Per your request, I've deleted this image. Please note that the F8 speedy deletion criterion, for images on Commons, is only applicable when the two images are bit-for-bit identical or when the image here at Wikipedia is a scaled-down version of the Commons image; it's not applicable in a case like this, when the Commons image simply shows the same thing as the Wikipedia image. However, I chose to delete it because you're the only human to have edited it and you plainly wanted it to be deleted, making it eligible for the G7 speedy deletion criterion. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, Thank you for deleting the image and thanks for the information. Since this was my first attempt to have some things deleted, I was struggling to identify the correct procedure. I will use the "G7" template next time. Regards, McChizzle (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; it wasn't a problem. This is one of the outworkings of WP:BURO — a page may be speedy deleted at any time if we can see that it fits one of the criteria, even if you tag it wrongly. Of course, it's a lot easier to notice that a page is eligible when it's properly tagged; earlier today I declined a speedy deletion because it used an invalid criterion, and then I deleted it because I realised from some other page that deletion had been requested by the author. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SF page edit war

Hey, Just so you know I put in a report at the edit war noticeboard about the guys who keep trying to add that multicam file on Special Forces (United States Army)‎. I put in it that you and I are reverting them. Just so you're "in the know" so to speak that I mentioned you. Take care, — -dainomite 15:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dainomite; that was very smart and kind of you to do that. Regards, McChizzle (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Great job on the SAME's medals! Djharrity (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Djharrity. --McChizzle (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and decorations of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Howdy. Nice job on the Coast Guard Cross graphic. I see that we are also the most recent editors of the Awards and decorations of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I found a presentation from the NOAA Corps Commissioned Personnel Center, where they talk about updates and additions to their awards and decorations system. The page it is found on is here Marine and Aviation Operations Centers Marine Operations, the power point presentation, complete with graphics is here: Officer Personnel Management Division. As info on the NOAA Corps awards and decorations is slim at best, do you think this constitutes a reliable source for the addition of the new awards? Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Eric. The kudos goes to you for creating the page. I would say the brief is sufficient evidence of the award changes; especially since the brief comes from a NOAA Corps website and it is uses the NOAA Corps official PowerPoint template. In other words, I would make the appropriate award updates based on that briefing in conjunction with anything additional you find appropriate in Chapter 12, Part 6 and Part 7 of NOAA Corps' uniform regulation. --McChizzle (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I thought but since I had to dig so hard to find it, I was not sure. And I see you already got everything added and cited, nicely done. EricSerge (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Army Astronaut Badge rarity

Ahoy,

I know you added 1 or 2 of the sources for the statement on the rarity of the Army Astronaut Badge (on Astronaut Badge ) "It is the rarest badge issued by the US Army" . I haven't been able to find evidence for that in the sources linked and so was going to remove them (and the claim) for now but wanted to check with you first to just find out if I'm blind. The sources are linked below:

Thanks for your help and all of your work on military decoration articles, I find them fascinating and have led me down many a wiki rabbit hole :). James of UR (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James, Thank you for the kind words. That quote is not from me; I don't know where it's from, however true it may be. The references you site are there to support the rest of the paragraph. --McChizzle (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy memorial day McChizzle

-dainomite is wishing you a Happy Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

CIB order of precedence

Well, it took some looking but I found the AR that covers order of precedence for the badges. The order of precedence is different than the "Groups" in the regs which specify what badges from what groups may be worn. It had disturbed me that the infobox listing for the badges had the EIB as a "higher" award than the CMB. As an example, a soldier with the CIB and CMB would wear the CIB above the CMB. If he had a CMB and EIB, he would wear the CMB above the EIB. Does the AR say this is the way to go? Well, no. But nobody is going to say "you should wear your EIB above the CMB." Table 8-1, AR 600-8-22 makes this clear. (In fact, the "Group" listings are basically AR jargon.) So I think I'll make other changes to the EIB, CMB, EFMB articles. Are we good? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S Rich, Thank you for voicing your opinion on this matter. When I was in the U.S. Army and according to AR670-01, section 29–17, b, 2 (page 297); Group 1 outranks Group 2, Group 2 outranks Group 3, and so on. Also according to this AR, "Combat Badges have precedence over Special Skill Badges within the same group" (i.e. a CIB outranks a EIB) and only one badge from each of the first three groups can be worn. Given this uniform regulation is clear on this matter, if a soldier had earned a CIB, an EIB, a CMB, and an Army Aviation Badge, they can wear (from highest to lowest) the CIB, CMB, and Army Aviation Badge; they can no longer wear the EIB for you can only wear one badge from each of the first three groups and Combat Badges outrank Special Skill Badges.

According to both AR670-1 and AR600-8-22, section 8-8, h (page 103); the only real debate these days is the CAB, which is in Group 1 and is a Combat Badge. This puts the CAB at par with the CIB. So if a soldier earns a CIB and a CAB, he can only wear one and each is a Combat Badge, so what do you do? Other articles suggest it is up to the soldier as to which badge they choose to wear (the CIB or CAB). In other words, the way the CIB page is currently written is not accurate; a EIB does outrank a CMB, although the CMB is a more prestigious award (it's not right, but those are the facts). For me, the Astronaut Device is the most prestigious of all, but it's outranked by the CIB, EIB, CMB, EFMB, etc. (it's in Group 3); "c'est la vie." For Wikipedia, we must remove our personal opinions and beliefs from the process and site facts from credible sources; otherwise Wikipedia will continue to have the reputation of having inaccurate information. --McChizzle (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the key words in 670-1 are "Listed below in order of group precedence are combat and special skill badges authorized for wear...." [para. 29-17.a. (p. 288), my emphasis] and "Combat badges have precedence ... within the same group." [para. 29-17.b.(2) (p. 297) my emphasis]. But I don't see anything in either AR that says the CMB "outranks" the EIB, or vise-versa. The term "outrank" simply is not used. (I agree that the Astronaut device is more prestigious than the others, but the guys I liked best in Iraq were those who wore EOD badges.) In any event, Table 8-1 in 600-8-22 gives us the definite order of precedence overall. (Interestingly, it puts the SF tab next to last.) Since the infobox template parameters tells us we can put higher & lower awards in the box according to the "order of precedence", we know what to follow – the clear order in Table 8-1. There is no confusion in the table as to what group, badge, tab, or device "outranks" any other. (BTW, I spent a few years in the Army too.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)22:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are trying to say that the CMB (which is in Group 2) is higher in precedence than the EIB (which is in Group 1)? Although I would like to agree with you, the text we have both quoted --"Listed below in order of group precedence are combat and special skill badges authorized for wear on the Army uniform." (page 288) and "Combat badges have precedence over special skill badges within the same group." (page 297)-- means to me that since the CMB is in Group 2, it has a lower precedence than the EIB in Group 1. If the EIB was in Group 2, we could say that the CMB is higher in precedence than the EIB, but they are in different groups. Maybe I'm confused, are you arguing the meaning of the word "precedence?"

Although it is not proper for me/us to use this as a reference, for I cannot find his DA Photo online, SFC Davies (from 7th SFG(A)) was a former 11B who earned the EIB before joining "Group." Due to his scores and the needs of USASOC, he became an 18D where he earned his CMB. He wore his EIB above his CMB on his BDUs. There are very few that have earned EIBs and CMBs due to the MOS specific nature of each badge.

By the way, thank you for your service to our country! --McChizzle (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different questions: "Where do we wear the medals/badges?" and "What is the order of precedence for the medals/badges?" AR 600-8-22, Table 8-1 says the order of precedence for the badges is CIB, CMB, CAB, EIB, EFMB, etc. We gotta go with this as the RS because the infobox parameters want to know what is the order of precedence, not where we wear the badges on the uniform. For that question we look at AR 670-1, which simply deals with the Wear and Appearance of the badges, etc. The "groups" in 670-1 just tell us what kind of mixing & matching amongst the badges is allowed. But AR 600-8-22 deals with the Military Awards themselves. (It mentions "Group" a single time, in para. 8-8h.) Consider: the MOH has a service ribbon (600-8-22, para. 6-2b) which can go on the rack by itself. Someone wearing the MOH service ribbon with or without the neck device would have it on the rack – and various badges would be pinned above the MOH service ribbon on the left breast. That does not mean the badges have precedence over anything. Only that they get pinned this place or that. And thank you for your service!! – S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point has become clear to me now; although the MOH example confused it at little. Table 8-1 (not Section 8-1) sold it for me; it helps to look at the table vs. the section, which made no sense to me when I first looked it up ("my bad"). I appreciate you taking the time to explain your view.

Given Table 8-1, I'm going to remove the CAB, EIB, and EFMB since they are listed, by "order of precedence," below the CMB. --McChizzle (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are most certainly welcome! Given your interest in subject, I needed to clear this with you so we wouldn't EW over it. I've gone ahead and tweaked all of the OoPs in the badge articles. As for the USAF, which seems to have a similar Group scheme, I'm not going to mess with. (I heard the Air Force simply issues all possible badges, ribbons, awards out as part of their basic training, with instructions to pin on awards every so often as they wish!) BTW, if you ever come across info on the French Desert Warfare and Survival course/badge please let me know. I did the course in March 2008. It was the best 10 days I spent in DJ! I'd like to make a userbox with the badge for display. Thanks again. – S. Rich (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Guard Diver Rating

Thank you for your edit of the article List of United States Coast Guard ratings; you beat me to the edit by just a minute or so. I had to revert my edit, but that is okay with me. I have just one question though. How did you determine that the diver rating be placed in the engineering and hull group? By way of information, I had tentatively guessed that it would somehow be in the deck ratings group. As a former Coast Guardsman, I was a machinery technician and as such I was expected to stand engineering watches. Somehow, I doubt that the diving rating would be even want to be qualified for engineering watches on a cutter. I realize that the divers in the new rating are only assigned to regional dive lockers and not on cutters, but I don't see their duties connected very much with what goes on with the rest of the engineering ratings. Is there some way we can confirm that "diver" is actually an engineering rate rather than deck rate? Just curious... Cuprum17 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuprum17, Sorry about that; at least it was added. I just put it back where the User:98.252.0.224 had put the rating description. Plus, I assumed (which is the mother of all mistakes) that since U.S. Navy Divers are in the Engineering and Hull Group, it could be the same in the U.S. Coast Guard; I'm also assuming the USCG will use the same rate insignia as the USN. In other words, I'm making some semi-educated guesses. If you can find a source that can clarify things, please make the edits that are needed. Regards, McChizzle (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MWSG-17

Like all other MWSGs MWSG-17 was disbanded. [1], [2]. noclador (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. --McChizzle (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

auto image

File:Autoimageformatcomparison.png

I don't understand why you prefer the version on the right with one image much smaller than the other. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking the question Frietjes. Throughout the article, I have tried to keep the size of all images to a relative scale with one another. In other words, I have worked to make certain that if one badge or tab is larger or smaller than another badge or tab that the size difference is reflected relative to one another. The yellow President's Hundred Tab is the small metal replica version of the tab, which is now the only full color version of the tab authorized for wear on the Army service uniform. The black and white cloth tab is the only authorized shoulder tab of the President's Hundred award for the U.S. Coast Guard. The size difference between the miniature metal tab of the Army and the cloth shoulder tab of the Coast Guard is something I want to portray. Note: The President's Hundred Brassard is of the same relative size as the cloth shoulder tab portrayed in the article in question. --McChizzle (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Auto images is used for automatically resizing the images so the all have the same height. you shouldn't use this template if you want to specify the width of each image individually. I will fix it for you. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --McChizzle (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

101st Airborne article

If you read the article you would see that it is unusual for the 101st Airborne to be in training with Special Forces. 2015 marked the first time of any significant training between the two organizations.Fury 1991 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Fury 1991[reply]

When I was with the 7th SFG(A) in the 90s, we would do small training events with select units within 18th Airborne Corps at Ft Bragg, such as Pathfinder and LRS units as well as Canadian Army units that would come down to participate in different exercises. It was a way to save money back when there was not a whole lot out there for training. But my word is not enough, nor should it be, and the source you reference is a good one. --McChizzle (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why they would put that in the article? I was with the 18th Airborne Corps in the 90s. We were stationed at Ft. Campbell and had ARTEPs at FT. Bragg. I remember some navigation training with 5th Group at Campbell so I too was confused by these comments.Fury 1991 (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Fury 1991[reply]

Marksman

Hi. I see you've worked on the Marksmanship Badges (United States) article. Perhaps you can also help with the Marksman article. That article is suffering from a lack of clear scope. Marksmanship redirects there, but the article says nothing about the topic. Sharpshooter redirects there too, but there's some disagreement over whether they are synonyms in common usage. Overall, it seems to be increasingly overlapping with the badges article. There's some discussion at Talk:Marksman‎#lead, but if you want to just dive into editing that'd be helpful too. Felsic2 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felsic2, thank you for reaching out. If time permits this holiday weekend, I will start to read the articles in question and see if I have anything worth contributing to the discussion. --McChizzle (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Whatever your time and interest allow. Have a nice holiday. Felsic2 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulder sleeve insignia

I changed them back, because the SSI's are the symbol of those Army divisions. The colored versions are like a coat of arms and not only a cloth in a cammie form. The Combat Identification Badge/symbol is still worn on the new ASU. That's why those divisons deserve on wikipedia to be shown at first place their colored insignia. Thank you. User:Duke83 —Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We worked through all of this already with other Wikipedians and we all decided that since not everyone assigned to a division earn a CSIB, the symbol that best represents all of those assigned to a particular division is the SSI. Since there is no colored SSI worn by anyone anymore, the CSIB is only earned by those who deploy to a warzone with that unit, and the US Army's coat of arms is a very different set of symbols all together, the subdued version of the SSI was now the most common item worn by all unit members (i.e. it best represents all of them, including those that have not deployed to a warzone with their unit).--McChizzle (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for your explanation. User:Duke83 —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hey McChizzle, I was wondering if you were aware of the fact that the colored SSI's are going to be worn with the new army greens army wide? User:Rukia8492 —Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware that the color SSIs are coming back with the new "Pinks and Greens." I am glad they are coming back into Army fashion! Back in 2017, we did not know that the blues were going to be moving back to being a ceremonial uniform. --McChizzle (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree I think they look a lot better, sadly I'm out of the army now. I would've love to wear the new army greens, wish the old branch specific piping on the garrison caps would come back also for these. Rukia8492 (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Coast Guard ratings

I notice you have recently posted some changes in the List of United States Coast Guard ratings. I don't have any problem with what you have done to improve the article, but I do have a question. In all the tables of ratings the last two columns (service rating, abbreviation) are blank on all ratings. I have no idea what "service rating" means and I retired from the Coast Guard with 24 years of combined Army, Army Reserve and Coast Guard Reserve time. Do you know what it means? Do those columns have to be in the tables? Thanks for your interest in improving Coast Guard articles as well as all the armed forces articles. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your long service to our nation Cuprum17! We owe you a debt that is hard to repay. I think those other two columns are a "cut and paste" job from the List of United States Navy ratings article for it appears to have meaning in the US Navy. In my opinion, it would make sense that those columns get removed from the US Coast Guard article due to their lack of meaning to that service. --McChizzle (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they aren't used in the article, I would support getting rid of them. Is this something you could tackle? I'm not that familiar with the construction of a table to attempt this myself. Thank you for your kind reply. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a little trial and error, the unnecessary columns have been removed. You could have done this too, you just need to experiment a little, as I did, by playing with each field's values to see what happens in the "Show preview" mode. --McChizzle (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Coast Guard Star
		I hereby award you the Coast Guard Star for your reorganization of the article List of United States Coast Guard ratings and for other significant editing on U.S. Coast Guard related articles. For your efforts, I award you the Coast Guard Star. Thank you and Semper Paratus! Cuprum17

My markup skills leave a lot to be desired, believe me. Don't take the award of the Coast Guard Star lightly, it's only been awarded five times so far. Thank you for your help on making a U.S. Coast Guard related article better for the Wikipedia reader. Please display it somewhere prominently. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the star Cuprum17; that means a lot to me. --I've been an admirer of the USCG since I was in college and almost went into the USCG Reserve when I left ARSOF in the 90s but decided I could continue to serve in a different way.-- I've never thought about highlighting things like award start on a page before; it's an interesting idea. I think I'll put them on my user page, given I have nothing there. --McChizzle (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I encouraged you to put it in a prominent place? ...so you would have something on your user page!!! Whatever you do, have fun with it. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beret Flash page

How do you feel if I sorted the Flashes into categories-

Infantry, Cavalry etc... instead of numerically as they are now? This would match the page for unit crests- Distinctive unit insignia and might be easier for folks. Mikeofv (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, have at it! --McChizzle (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, I noticed all your work on the Honda Ridgeline page. I just have to say. it's been 2 and a half years of you working on that. I honestly think you should take a break man, I mean, how do you get so much information from a truck everybody seems to hate? --Cpufreak101 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page. There's lots of information out there on the Honda Ridgeline, primarily because it's so controversial. As to whether "everyone seems to hate" the Ridgeline is a matter of perspective. There's a large group of Ridgeline enthusiast that like the engineering of the vehicle and it's thoughtful and purposeful design. I think even the enthusiasts would agree that the Ridgeline is not the most attractive truck to the average US mid-size truck buyers, but those that do purchase them seem to do so due to the "middle ground" they fill for owners. For me it was a compromise that turned into a fascination with the engineering of the Ridgeline. However, most of my Wikipedia work is on U.S. military articles.--McChizzle (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply dude --72.228.151.137 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi McChizzle

Hey McChizzle, I'm David from Jalopnik. I saw your contribution on the Ridgeline page, and wanted to ask you a question or two, if that's cool. Can you please email me at david.tracy@jalopnik.com?

Thank you,

-David Jalopnik

Toomanyxjs (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent. --McChizzle (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

As a current or past contributor to a USCG article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! COASTIE I am (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Ridgeline article

Hey, McChizzle. I read the article that David Tracy of the automotive news site Jalopnik wrote about the intriguing detail of the Wikipedia article on the Honda Ridgeline and how you're primarily responsible for the absurd level of detail. As someone who likes learning various miscellaneous factoids about random vehicles, I would like to offer the highest level of gratitude possible for your contributions to the article. To say it was one of the most interesting articles I've ever read on Wikipedia would be a gross understatement. Thank you so much for your contributions.

NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. Or don't thank him. I'm a collection of zeroes and ones, not a cop. 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very kind note NiklawskiMSTM! I'm glad you found value and/or interest in the article. Given I'm not a very good writer, I'm quite thankful for your comment about it being one of the "most interesting articles [you've] ever read." Best regards, --McChizzle (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congrats on both your work on the article for the Ridgeline, and also for the Jalopnik article. Hopefully it will inspire Jalopnik readers who are passionate about other brands or models to jump in to WP and enhance the articles for those vehicles. KConWiki (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, McChizzle. The ridgeline article is slowly starting to take rounds on social media for being so insanely detailed (in a good way), all the way here in Sri Lanka. Cheers, Reh man 15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What, no way?!?! "Sweet!!!" --McChizzle (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Ridgeline

Hey McChizzle,

I wanted to say that the rescuing of links was more of an ahead procedure. It was meant for saving the links. When the site article gets taken down, there will be no way of recusing it. So, the only way of "resucing" it will be doing it early. Despite that, I will respect your removal of the rescued web archive links.

By the way, neat work on the article. :) Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Artix, I understand the point of your edit and thank you for jumping in to help. I've not had much trouble identifying when the primary links go bad and finding their corresponding WebArchive version. Granted my process is not automatic but there are some good BOTs out there that are doing a good job, such as the InternetArchiveBot. There has been some security concerns expressed over some of the WebArchive pages in the past; so I take the approach of only referring to them when there is no other choice, just in case there's some validity to the security concern. Thank you for your kind words. --McChizzle (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

207th MIB (T) Unit Page

McChizzle, noticed that you created a unit page for the 207th MIB (T) on 21 April. I am the BDE PAO and I wanted to say thank you as you just alleviated a lot of work for me! Thank you for the help!

Chelsea.l.hall14 (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Chelsea Hall[reply]

As they say at Fort Huachuca for the greeting of the day, "Out front" ma'am!

Thank you for your service! --McChizzle (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your exhaustive work on the Honda Ridgeline! Vauxford (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vauxford! The definition of "exhaustive" = examining, including, or considering all elements or aspects; fully comprehensive. I like that word for it expresses exactly what I was trying to do. --McChizzle (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old OTRS

I was checking some images that were lacking OTRS. I found File:2017 Honda Ridgeline-Touring with OEM accessories.jpg which had been waiting a long time. However on a hard search of OTRS, I found a ticket (looked like closed in error) from Eric Chan which said you were going to upload a series of files...

IMG_2661.JPG , 564.0 KBytes
FullSizeRender (1).jpg , 1.3 MBytes
FullSizeRender (2).jpg , 717.1 KBytes
FullSizeRender (3).jpg , 1.3 MBytes
FullSizeRender.jpg , 1.6 MBytes
IMG_2500.JPG , 1.4 MBytes
IMG_2501.JPG , 1.3 MBytes

Now the first one (IMG_2661.JPG) is an obvious match for the File:2017 Honda Ridgeline-Touring with OEM accessories.jpg. so I've added the ticket to it. Question is did the other six files get uploaded? If not do you still want them? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronhjones, thank you for looking into this and contacting me. The instructions I left the author was confusing to him, so he sent a bunch of images only one of which I was interested in using in an article. The author was fine with the use of the one image and was okay with me ignoring the rest. If policy dictates otherwise, feel free to upload them yourself for I think they were attached in the original permissions emails (I could be mistaken). Regardless, I don't have a copy of the other images, so... --McChizzle (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3rd SFAB page and related graphics

How are you sir. I saw your notes looking for references; however, I cannot post a copy of my orders as reference to the fact we are standing up right now. There are currently a few dozen Senior leaders here establishing the framework of a newly developed organization and I wouldn't expect anyone to see articles about us anytime soon for reference material. You can go to the 3rd Security Force Assistance Brigade facebook also if you like.

V/r

Damon Wilson SFC(P)/USA Senior Medical Advisor 1st Bn, 3rd SFAB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsc201knoc (talk • contribs) 10:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SFC Wilson,

Thank you for your service and for volunteering to stand up a new and important Army unit. I wish you all the best and when you deploy, watch your back—as I know you will do for others—and return home safe.

You are welcome to use your new unit's Facebook pages as a source, particularly given that it's categorized as an official government organization. Since your unit has not officially stood up, It's probably not proper to say the unit exists unit the official ceremony constituting the brigade. Couch your edits in the light that it is forming, vs already ready for deployment, and you should be fine.

McChizzle (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Beret Flashes

I organized the Airborne flashes by Branch as we discussed. Does it make sense to merge the Special Oerations units into the main listing by branch, leave them alone, or split them out within the special ops category? It may confuse people to see Signal, Psyops, and a few others in 2 sections Mikeofv (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Braking them up into special ops categories makes the most sense to me. --McChizzle (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too easy Mikeofv (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jalopnik / Ridgeline

Hi McChizzle. The recent Jalopnik story about Wikipedia's Honda Ridgeline article has only just come to my attention. I don't live in North America, and therefore I'd never heard of the Ridgeline until I read the story. As a longtime Wikipedia editor who occasionally contributes to articles about individual automobile models, I salute you and your collaborators. Almost all such Wiki articles are a long way short of what they should be. It's great that you and your collaborators have made the effort to develop a suitable precedent for editors of such articles to follow. I would urge you to nominate the article for featured article status. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bahnfrend; your comment means a lot to me. I have no idea how to nominate such an article. Plus, there are editors that don't like the article because it has too much authoritative information compared to other automotive articles—which are often so lacking in accurate information that they're not worth reading. Do you think this article would stand-up to the scrutiny required for such a nomination? --McChizzle (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should do it. Very few articles on individual models have been granted featured article status, and we need some more as precedents. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles page has a list of featured articles, and former featured articles, on Automobiles. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria has lots of useful information, including links to pages providing guidance and advice. You might also want to contact my friend User:Evad37, who has successfully nominated several articles on roads and bridges for good and featured article status. Even if you're not keen to go for featured article status, you could have a go at having it given "good article" status. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your encouragement is a breath of fresh air, Bahnfrend. After reading the criteria for Good Article (GA) status and reviewing some automotive articles assessed as GA, I don't know if the Ridgeline article would pass muster given requirement 3b ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). Also, some editors do not like the first part of the "Equipment" sections for there are no quotes from journalists (a 2c concern). There are outstanding articles out there—such as the Religious symbolism in the United States military—that are B Class yet are very noteworthy. I'm worried that all the great work put into the Ridgeline article by the vehicle's user forum could get dumbed down by such a review, given many of the GA graded vehicle articles are really lacking in information. The information in the Ridgeline article has proven to be quite valuable to readers that have reached out to me on the vehicle's user forum and on Wikipedia with thanks. In summary, I don't know if following the current evaluation process will help change how Wikipedia editors allow automotive articles to be written and maintained. Is there another avenue that would help shed light on the duality of encyclopedias (can be summaries or detailed articles on a subject), better encourage a change in culture, and/or allow greater detail to exist on these automotive articles? -McChizzle (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think about it and get back to you. One possibility might be some minor tweaking. In the case of this particular article, though, you have the inestimable advantage of being able to refer to and rely upon an article by a motoring journalist praising the Wikipedia article for its level of detail. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bahnfrend, As it relates to this article, what would you "tweak" before we try to go down this GA road? --McChizzle (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's something I have to think about. At this point, I'm not convinced that the article is too detailed or needs any tweaking. Yes, it's detailed, but it covers two generations of a model that's been in production for 15 years and is apparently updated every year except when in runoff. I also note that there seems to be a similar level of detail in, eg, the GA article Chevrolet Cobalt SS, which is about a particular version of a model that was in production for only five years, and is therefore a much shorter article. Further, even if there are other GA articles that are less detailed, it doesn't follow that the Ridgeline article is too detailed for GA. Rather, it may only mean that those articles qualify for GA even though they could benefit from more detail. I will be meeting with some other Wikipedia editors this weekend. I will discuss the article with them and get back to you. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've now had a chat with a number of other editors, including a couple of administrators. They said, and I agree, that as the article is already well referenced, there's not much chance of any dumbing down by deletions (or suggested deletions). Rather, if you were to submit the article for assessment and if the assessor were to conclude that it's too detailed, what the assessor would probably suggest is not that material be deleted, but that the article be split, eg into one article for each generation of the model and a general overview article (ie three articles in total). They also suggested that you aim to nominate the article for FA status, but nominate it for GA status first, and see how it goes. With a GA nomination, the article would need to be reviewed by only one editor, and the criteria are not difficult to satisfy. If the article were to pass GA assessment, you could either stop there or progress to an FA nomination, which would involve several editors. At FA level, there may be some (friendly) "nitpicking" (often about form rather than substance or content), but, again, it's unlikely that there would be any dumbing down. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The splitting apart idea has been mentioned before, so I've already started experimenting with that idea; however, I could use some help. I have broken it up into three articles: an overview (User:McChizzle/sandbox), Gen1 (User:McChizzle/sandbox2), and Gen2 (User:McChizzle/sandbox3). The overview is really lacking, in my opinion. Would you mind reviewing it and share any advice you may have for me?

One of the criteria stated for GA status is article stability, so if I'm still adding information to the article is that considered stable? There are a few things I'm still trying to add to the article before I would consider it finished. I'm working with the members of the Ridgeline forum to get some pictures of the in-bed audio system (the "exciters") so I can provide some detail about how they work and I'm looking for some custom Gen2 Ridgelines that I can feature on the article—much like I have done for the Gen1 in the marketing and sales section—(I'm trying to be fair and balanced). Lastly, the Ridgeline forum is waiting for the mid-cycle refresh of the Gen2 to be published so that information can be added to the article. With that said, is now the right time for me to submit it for review? --McChizzle (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They wrote an article about this in Finnish main stream media. https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/virkamiehen-kirjoittama-seikkaperainen-wikipedia-artikkeli-saa-honda-faninkin-hieraisemaan-silmiaan-209-lahdetta-ja-kymmenia-kuvia/7301856?#gs.XkxJazwa 194.36.104.173 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the story is really going around the world—from the US, to Australia, Sri Lanka, and Finland—despite the hate that exists for the article by Wikipedia editors and administrators because it doesn't conform to their interpretation of what should and should not be on Wikipedia. Thank you for sharing that; it made my day. --McChizzle (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your most recent questions: I suggest you go ahead with your plan to split the articles, and then, once you're happy with the gen1 article and it's been in existence for a few weeks, let me know and I'll have a close look at the gen1 article (and possibly do a little bit of touching up of it) so that you can nominate that article first. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Added bar and SSI to infobox)

I saw that you have added the bar to the 5th SFG(A) page. I have read somewhere about this bar being worn my EMs in Vietnam below the SF DUI on the flash. My dad was assigned to HQ 5th Group in Nah Trang 1968-69 as a MI CWO4 Counter Intel Tech. When he checked in there he was wearing the green beret and the SGTMAJ said no way Chief, no beret without jump wings on your chest; so it was the god awful baseball cap for him. He spent December 68 to Feb 69 with B55 MSF and earned his 3d CIB in the Rung Sat Special Zone, he had been an Infantry officer in WWII and Korea and up to 1961 for CIBs 1 & 2. In May 1969 at 51 years old he graduated from the RVNSF Parachute School and earned the right to wear the beret. He never saw a bar other then the one in the O'club. Meyerj (talk)

Howdy Meyer! I would check out my edits to the United States military beret flash page, particularly the Army History section. I was with 7th SFG(A) in the 90s, so the recognition bar—also known as a candy strip—had already been removed from the uniform regulations. I can only go on what I can find in old Army uniform regulations and other publications, such as:

--McChizzle (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USAF Special Recon

I am impressed with your knowledge about an obscure AF speciality (Special Recon)(the Air Force refers to their careers/jobs as specialties and each has it's own specialty code,this includes battlefield airmen like special recon, TACP, combat controllers, and an even more obscure fact that they have been designated for a new beret flash.

How do you do it. I first moved Combat Weather to AF Special Recon after running into the change on some site. The specialty was new and I don't believe that it's training, tactics and employment have been fully worked out, although that its now possible, given that a year or so has passed since the change.Oldperson (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response and thank you for your kind words; it's not something one gets very often on this platform. I have been away from Wikipedia for a while and will slowly be getting back into it, given my workload permits it. Despite my interest after service with some SOWTs in the mid-90s and my interest in military heraldry, it is all about searching for good articles and publications on the subject (i.e. Google can be your friend if you know how to use it the right way). Thank you for your contributions and your sharing of information and knowledge about the US military and its changes, keep it up. --McChizzle (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Security Force and the Space Force

Got the source provided! In essence what was said is they are now a Air Force provided support force that the Space Force utilizing. Garuda28 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain sources on Master Gunner Identification Badge and Master Gunner

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is cool, thanks Diannaa! --McChizzle (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A late thanks

Just wanted to thank you for having added a tiny space before 1980 in this edit. A very elegant way to add a lot of meaningful additional information, I will utilize it as much as I can. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to post a nice comment on my talk page. Wikipedians are not usually inclined to say positive things to one another. So your comment is much appreciated. Best regards, McChizzle (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Award question

Hey, hope you are doing well.

Had a quick question: I know its been established that its the military departments that award medals/decorations, but do you know for badges (such as AF occupational badges) is it the department or the service that award them? Thanks, as always! Garuda28 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently, the Department of the Air Force and the US Air Force were basically one in the same, but now it can get confusing. I do not know but suspect Air Force occupational badges are awarded by the service not the Department or Air Force civilian employees could wear them and they cannot. Again, this is a guess for I have not read anything that delineates department from service authorizations for occupational badges. --McChizzle (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking as well. Much appreciated. Garuda28 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Service Badge

I removed the link because Marine Security Company at Camp David is a part of Marine Barracks Washington, and is not related to Marine Security Force Regiment. --Revmqo (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Just explain such things in the "Edit summary" so editors can be better educated and not work against your efforts to make an article better. --McChizzle (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

101st Airborne

You've been fighting the battle of edits with IPs beginning with 2603:9000:9907:1100. I've tried to help when I could, but you do seem to be better at it. Is there some way to minimize these edits with a combination of range blocking and/or subject matter blocking. I can't prove it, but I think all these IPs are the same guy. I don't know enough about the process(es) to even start.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I know of is to block all IP edits so that only register users can contribute, but that block is only for a few days and has to be implemented by an administrator. An admin did this once because of this IP user's edits and as soon as the block was lifted he/she was back at it. I don't know what else to do. This IP user is not willing to learn proper English and just keeps doing what he/she wants to do and does so on close to 50 different US Army articles. I've gone out of my way to try and educate this IP user on English grammar rules but this user is unwilling to listen or learn and insistence on enforcing their view of how English should be written on every military article he/she comes across. He/she also enjoys editing fire department/station articles but does not vandalism them with improper grammar, just the military unit articles; it's an interesting dichotomy. --McChizzle (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I took a quick look at WP:Pending changes, but that seemed unworkable for this issue. Maybe he'll get tired one day.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expert Infantry Badge

If the award is strictly for us army infantrymen h Then the award should showcase us army infantry not Korean soldiers . It’s an American award by the us army . Cowsthatfloat (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree yet the article needs to be holistic. It should show both for per the DoD article, the female Korean soldier who earned the skill badge is unique and worthy of note in an encyclopedia but should not be the primary image, that is why I liked and kept the IP editors unsourced edits. --McChizzle (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctive unit insignia on division pages

hey McChizzle I've been adding the DUI's for different battalions on their respective division pages at a size of 25px except for units where I cant find the insignia. for the airborne units shouldn't we add the DUI's next to the beret flashes?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukia8492 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rukia8492! I like what you are doing and do not see an issue with what you propose. The only reason I have not done the same was to keep the clutter down to just one distinctive insignia for each unit, but that is just a style thing so there is no reason there cannot be both. When I added those flashes, I was focused on developing the beret flash article and went ahead and added them to the unit specific articles when I found them; there's really no other reason other than that for why they are there, other than they should be proud that they are "Airborne." --McChizzle (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it McChizzle, as soon as I get a chance i'll get to work on it. --Rukia8492

111th Military Intelligence Brigade

I forgot, thank you for correcting my error. --McChizzle (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Maloy/USAF A1C Roger Klenovich

Hi, I just created a page for Robert Maloy. Would you mind uploading the original group photo File:USAF A1C Roger Klenovich-circa 1967.jpg so that I can use it on the new page? Thanks Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Go back to the aforementioned file and you will see the full group image. --McChizzle (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infantry

USAF Folks continue to vandalize the Infantry page claiming Security Force is Infantry. Under all US Doctrine there is no official job of Infantry for the USAF only opinions. Can you help clear this up in the community? Cowsthatfloat (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cowsthatfloat, I don't know that I can directly help. USAF SF do get a lot of infantry training from Army Infantry instructors and some even go to Ranger school. The better term for the USAF SF is probably "combat arms." Even in the Army, not all combat arms are infantry for there is armor, cavalry, special forces, etc. Maybe you should try to convince the "USAF Folks" that the term "combat arms" is the more appropriate term or definition for USAF SF. --McChizzle (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Wings

Hey, thanks for your help with the space wings article. I’ve been scouring for sources on it. Just wanted to give you a heads up that the 533d seems to have messed up when saying space functional badge (broad description for the badge of any functional area) vs it’s official name. I’ve found some more vetted PA sources which indicated that the same is still space operations badge officially and wanted to give you a heads up! Garuda28 (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense Garuda28. The additional source you recently found helps. I took that source and added the information to the foreign awards paragraph (good stuff). --McChizzle (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Also, how do you clean up the sources like that? I’ve been on Wikipedia for years now and never learned that. Garuda28 (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing other Wikipedian's edits on other articles helped educated me. --McChizzle (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flightastrobadge.jpg

Hello, thanks for looking at my update. I have actually noticed a fair number of unclear copyright statuses on the US Navy insignia images; a few of them are apparently photos from non-government uniform retail sites (I have nominated some of the clearer cases for deletion). Because they are photos of 3d objects, I believe the guidance on photos of old coins applies here. Given that lighting was the reason you reverted my upload, this makes sense. Part of the reason I overwrote the file (rather than a new upload) was because of the unclear provenance of the original astro badge. I raised this concern about image on File:IDCWarfareInsignia.jpg on SGT141's Commons talk page, for instance. The fact that everything was migrated from en-wiki to commons makes it harder to reconcile. I do think the newer version is a much clearer image with better-defined texture. I am color-blind but can try to retouch the picture to make it brighter – more yellow, less gold – if that's your chief concern. I'm not sure where to go from here; it doesn't look like the Navy presently offers high-quality images of these badges, but in general, I'd prefer the line drawings with transparency in SVG format over a photo of a badge. I hate to be such a stickler, especially since insisting on this makes Wikipedia "worse" (fewer and grainier pictures), all in the name of copyright persnicketiness.-Ich (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving a comment/question. The color is one issue the other is the bad opaque or off-color backgrounds. The biggest issue is when you are not correcting another's upload image/graphic but putting an entirely different image/graphic on the page, you need to update the source information and possibly even the license for the original information may no longer apply. --McChizzle (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing DUIs

I think we should be marking them as "obsolete" rather than deleting the DUIs when they change- ref 82nd ABN or the 143d INF. This page isn't really a running list of active units. Mikeofv (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the DUI list page, that makes sense to me. Do you have an opinion on when a unit changes its role; should it be moved to the correct section or duplicated? Personnaly, I am not a fan of duplication on that list page for it is already so big it is hard to load. --McChizzle (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conflicted over it. <long wandering commentary deleted> I like how you identified the Battlefield Surveillance section- that's probably the best way to go instead of deleting them entirely. Maybe we tag the others as "obsolete" for the mainstream branches and keep them in the sequence to prevent people from asking why there's a gap; I've seen commentary asking where the other airborne divisions are below 82nd :) Or we can provide a list (103d Infantry: see 133d Engineer)(20th Armor: see 133d Engineer) at the bottom of the section.

For things like the 1st Cavalry Division in both Cavalry & Division, I should probably delete it in Cavalry. It only needs to be in one and the Division section makes more sense. Same with United States Army Special Operations Aviation Command & United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command moving them to the Alphabetical section.

But does that also mean we should bring in images of the inactive beret flashes (6th SF, 3-325) and wing ovals (2-187)? Or make an obsolete page like the "Obsolete Badges of the US Military"?

To your question on obsolete beret flashes, I have given that topic much thought and starting to list all the obsolete beret flashes as well as the active ones could make the beret flash article unwieldly. So I decided to summarize the history of the U.S. military beret flash and allow that to cover the topic. Although I think this approach works for the U.S. Air Force beret flashes, the history of the changes to an infantry regiment's beret flash over the years, for example, and all the myriad of combat support and service support units feels endless. I wanted some means of limiting the scope of the article to keep it under control, but my concerns and premise my be wrong. In other words, I am still thinking about it, particularly know that I have basically finished capturing the information in the current article. --McChizzle (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste move of 173rd Airborne

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 173rd Airborne Brigade. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could not move it because it already existed. So can you help me with the aforementioned process? --McChizzle (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The correct procedure would be to start a requested move which is a little slow but is the preferred method. One alternative is to do a history merge which I've just requested (as you can currently see atop the 173rd Airborne Brigade article. This may take a while since few administrators perform history merges as they can be tricky, or so I'm told. Pichpich (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! --McChizzle (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beret flashes

Hey, I wanted to ask you about the beret flashes on the USASOC page that you added as inline images back on 23-06-19. I don't even know if they're mos-compliant, but they appear somewhat clunky in the text and are difficult to see on mobile devices. I would like your opinion on moving them into a table. I've made a tentative edition in my sandbox. Was hoping you'd take a look and give an opinion. Cheers - wolf 01:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked it our my my smartphone and it looks fine to me. Regardless, this is an artifact of someone converting what was a table into paragraphs without trying to clean anything up. With that said, I like how the small colored flashes help callout where the a specific unit is called out in a paragraph for it helps to draw the eye to where someone may want to focus. Looking at your table, I don't know how it fits. If you were to do that, I would recommend having readers to go the United States military beret flash article. --McChizzle (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not diggin' the table, huh? Meh, it was just a suggestion. The flashes are an important part of unit identity, especially in SF, so much so that other editors and yourself have taken to the unusual approach of adding them to every unit name, right in the text. I'm not saying that's bad, just not typical. (No offense intended.)

I see you are now moving the unit names from prose to a list format, which makes them easier for the eye to find, especially with bolding and/or linking. As for for the table, I figured it made for a good quick-reference, especially one that can be linked to (instead of the main beret article, which is kind of a dog's breakfast.) The USASOC page is not a large article, only 35kB and currently has just the one table; 'list of commanders'. The beret flash table could sit rather nicely down just above the 'order of battle' header. But this is all JMHO. Cheers - wolf 03:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying something different to try and address your concerns. --McChizzle (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcoding Images

I've noticed that you've made edits to several articles where you have hardcoded the images. This is against Wikipedia policy, see WP:IMGSIZE. Please take the time to review and understand the MOS:IMAGES. -Signaleer (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving me a message, Signaleer. Not "hardcoring" is a style recommendation that helps only registered users that don't like the default display settings. In reverting my edit with your own hardcored image size is disingenuous. Note that I will be removing your hardcored image size to allow the default size established in the infobox template to be applied to the introductory image in question. --McChizzle (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, it says:

See the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images § Size for further guidance on expanded or reduced image sizes. Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels, disregarding the user's image size preference setting. In most cases upright=scaling_factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices)

This was pointed out to me by another Wikipedian, after some thought, it makes sense. I did not come up with the policy or rules, I try to make edits when necessary. Please don't take it as a personal attack, have a great weekend! -Signaleer (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read on, this section talks about under what conditions this can be a problem, specifically editors that have decided to alter their default display setting when they visit articles while logged in. The information you cite is about not using "px" but to use "upright=scaling factor" to better support these niche editors that like to alter their setting, not forbidding the use of different images sizes to better support a given article or section. That being said, I did not revert your edits when you removed the "px" values on the articles images, just your change to the primary infobox image hardcode value for your own hardcode value while telling me not to use hardcodes. This is the problem I have with your post on my talk page. I am content with the fact that my removal of the hardcode all together from that introductory image appears to be acceptable to us both. --McChizzle (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US Army National Guard divisions

Hello McChizzle

I updated all the US Army's division charts. But now while doing the update of the National Guard divisions two questions came up: do National Guard divisions have a Division Artillery? do they have a Sustainment Brigade? At least the latter seems to be true: Sustainment Brigades in the United States Army#Divisional Sustainment Brigades. Do you happen to have more information? Thank you, cheers, noclador (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Noclador,

I hope you are well and safe during this time of COVID.

I do not have any information other than what one can gather from each division's official websites and Facebook pages. I recall reading somewhere that the Army National Guard does not have enough soldiers and equipment to round out each of its divisions as it would an active duty equivalent. With the U.S. Army refocusing it's National Guard brigades to be subordinate to divisions again—to address the new focus towards great power competition when on Title 10 status—this was something they new needed to be addressed in some way.

--McChizzle (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, luckily I am doing fine. I hope you're safe and well too. Re. the US divisions: if we are not sure about the National Guard divisions, then how to best update them? At least the sustainment brigades seem to have been designated for each division. I would assume that the division artillery comes next... I will do updates with what info we have now and if you happen to come across more info, please share with me (also via email on my user page). noclador (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging and yes, Division Artillery will be added to the National Guard divisions. That process should be finished by 2022. A sustainment brigade will also be added to all eight National Guard divisions. However it is totally unclear what brigade combat teams the eight divisions will have: there are 27 National Guard brigade combat teams, two remain with active divisions. Leaves 25, but as of now on the division articles on wikipedia only 23 brigade combat teams are listed and we don't know if they will shuffle more brigades around. noclador (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! Check these out:

--McChizzle (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these two presentations were done before the increase from 2 to 3 combat maneuver battalions per brigade and the subsequent reduction in NG brigades. I can't find not current graphic like this. In the meantime I updated the Marine Corps graphics. In case you come across some needed changes to the graphics, feel free to contact me. Cheers, noclador (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated 40th and 42nd National Guard Infantry Division - the other 6 I will update when we have more information. Cheers, noclador (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did update the other 6x National Guard divisions, with the last confirmed / best available information. If you happen to come across any bit of information as to changes to the Army divisions, please let me know and I will update the graphics within 24h. Cheers, noclador (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also updated I, III, and XVIII Airborne Corps; and newly added Army Network Enterprise Technology Command. Will also update US Army Europe, US Army Pacific, Eighth Army and 32nd Army Air & Missile Defense Command - then I guess we have all the possible major units. If you have some that you think need updating or creating of Orbats, let me know. noclador (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's back

Hi. That persistent disruptive editor with the roaming ip address based in Florida is back from his 30 day block and is wreaking havoc already. This guy has to be blocked permanently. He apparently has an OCD issue or two, but this isn't the place for that. I already corresponded with HankScorpio. We must collectively take this to the Wikipedia administration. Thank you, Doriden (talk)•

How do we do that? --McChizzle (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2603.9000.9907

Hi, the persistent disruptive editor based in Florida using a roaming ip address that just returned from a 30 day block and interest seems to be in US Army and fire department subjects is banned for 3 months for continuing his disruptive campaign immediately following his 30 day ban. I already informed Hankscorpio. Thanks,Doriden (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2603.9000.9907

Hi Mcchizzle, it seems that the roaming ip address that I got blocked first for 30 days, which ended on 6-27, then I had him blocked again for 3 months for persistent disruptive editing behavior is back and using an ip address 172.58.172.6 for the past 24 hours has been active and Hankscorpio has been reverting them. It would help a great deal if you contacted the same administrator as I did to report him and get him blocked. Wugapodes is his name. The more complaints about him the better the chances for a longer or permanent block. The 172 ip address is from Florida, just like the roaming 2603.9000 one that is currently blocked for 3 months. Same subject matter as well. We got to stick together on this. OK? Thank you, Doriden (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

172.58.172.6

Mcchiggles, I can't do this alone we have to do this collectively. I already had him blocked twice, first for a month, which ended on 6-27 and he went right back to his persistent disruptive editing behavior. And I appealed to the Wikipedia administrator Wugapodes who then imposed a 90 day block. Now he's doing sockpuppetry using the 172.58.172.6 ip address and Hankscorpio has been reverting them all day. I can't be the only one complaining about this. Do you know what I mean? Contact Wugapodes talk page and just say what is going on. Thank you, Doriden (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you Doriden. I am not on Wikipeida all that much right now, so my ability to respond is a little more limited than normal for me. We can't block all of Florida for contributing, so is there really a way forward that an administrator can enable to keep this disruptive editor for destroying content? If there is a way and this editor keeps vandalizing pages, then I am happy to take the time to push the issue with you. How3ever, I just looked at one of this editor's edits on a US Army unit page that Hankscorpio reverted and it is actually a good edit that should not have been reverted. So this editor's disruptive behavior on US Army unit pages may have changed for the better, but I will keep watching. --McChizzle (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

172.58

He's blocked for 3 months. Let's see if he turns up anyplace else. Doriden (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USASOC

Hey, could you take at look at Talk:United States Army Special Operations Command#"Yoo-se-sok" and perhaps weigh in with any thoughts? (watchers, this isn't canvassing, McC here edits these articles regularly and I'm not at all familiar with a template being used, is all). Cheers - wolf 06:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for the "heads up." --McChizzle (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed all your work

Hello :) Ive noticed all your work on the Marksmanship Badges for the United States. I have a better photo of the first photo you have. The marine is my uncle and I found it on his Facebook. Let me know if you want to have a better photo to use. I also have some photos of the U.S. Marine Corps Distinguished Marksman, Lloyd Trophy, and Marine Corps Division (with pistols so I'm sure its for Pistols) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash0win1 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ash0win1. If the photo is public domain (which a private individual's Facebook photos are not), then sure. A better photo is always welcome given it supports the information in the article and helps explain or demonstrate "fact of" something.

I saw your contribution to the intro image description. Since the article is about marksmanship badges and not individuals who have earned them, highlight/celebrating individuals can be distracting from the article's intended purpose and focus—some call it drifting or "going down the rabbit whole." So I have purposefully avoided using an individual's information or the events related to a particular photo. Details like you have added are better put on the image description page where more details about the photo can be expanded upon. So I removed some of the information that is not relevant, nor supportive, to the article's main purpose, the badges themselves. I hope that is okay with you. --McChizzle (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Pathfinder School

Please read my sources before removing my edits, it stated that the ARNG Warrior Training Center runs the course, and that the The Sabalauski Air Assault School runs the Pathfinder course in Fort Campbell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karhunkynsi244 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check how you cite your sources for I read your original linked website multiple times. That page never mentioned the Army National Guard or the Warrior Training Center. Your new edits have a better link to an appropriate source stating such things. As I review your sighted sources, none of them have dates suggesting deactivation or continuation. What information do you have that tells us the national guard will continue the course after the active Army discontinues it? --McChizzle (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the us army training reservation site, it has continued class dates through this entire fiscal year, however i cannot cite it as it requires a CAC log in to access im eating cum (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also dont see what you mean about my old sources, as I just copy and pasted the edit you removed. im eating cum (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I mist your last reference for I got very confused with the order of your "<ref name=":0">" callout, sorry. Without dates on either referenced website to show such facts makes things difficult. I did a little cleanup and combined both paragraphs in a more chronological order to help readers follow the point being made. --McChizzle (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Disruptor

Hi Sir,. That jerk who we got blocked last month was back again this afternoon with another ip address. Same subject matter, same style of editing, same state. I had him blocked by ohnoitsjaime for 1 month. His last one is for 6 months LTA Sock. I don't know what he gets out of it but he has a long history going back about 4 years. Just wanted to inform you. All the stuff that he did the afternoon has been reverted by Cutlass. Thanks, Doriden (talk)`

Thank you! --McChizzle (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space Test fundamentals

Looks like my edit summary was cut off before it published, but it looks like the patch in your image is a class patch and not the actual one. The one published mirrors the emblem of the school, so it seems legit (https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/2742377/usaftps-graduates-first-production-space-test-fundamentals-class/) seen in this image. Garuda28 (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here’s a better image (https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002873539/mediaid/5495870/)

How's it going Garuda28? I found those examples as well and that is a logo vs an authorized AFI type graduate patch that can be worn on the uniform regardless of duty station. Plus, the drawing itself is not the same as what you reference above and the drawing cannot be found on any official website. I'm not even sure where the author got the drawing or what they used to create the drawing (it's unsourced). --McChizzle (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversion of my edit to the article "1st Special Forces Command (Airborne)"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the article "1st Special Forces Command (Airborne)" with the comment

Undid revision 1092305476 by DocWatson42 When do organizational nicknames get treated a proper noun and when did we start putting quotes around titles of articles in references?

The organizational nickname in this case actually is a proper noun, and is noted as such in the parent organization's article. See these references taken from that article (which I admit that I've cleaned up—both the article and the references) use the term as a proper noun:

"How the Green Berets got their name". Army Times. 14 July 2020.
Goldberg, Maren (n.d.). "Green Berets: United States military". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
"USASOC Headquarters Fact Sheet". United States Army Special Operations Command. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 10 June 2022.

Note that two of the above references are from official publications of the US Army. Additionally, see the book Inside the Green Berets, which capitalizes the term throughout when it does not refer to the headgear:

Simpson, Charles M. III (1983). Inside the Green Berets: The First Thirty Years: A History of the U.S. Army Special Forces. Novato, Calif.: Presidio Press. ISBN 9780891411635. OCLC 635308594.

Regarding the use of quotation marks for titles in references, see MOS:MINORWORK (and also MOS:MAJORWORK), as well as Help:Citation Style 1. If you want, I have The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition, the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition, the MLA Handbook, Eight Edition (apparently I missed the publication of the ninth), and the New Oxford Style Manual (2016) on hand, and can cite the relevant passages. The reference is a newspaper article by The Fayetteville Observer, so the title should be in quotation marks.

Give that, may I please change the article back? (Though I was lazy in regards to the reference, and this time will use a proper citation template.) Please be so kind as to notify me of your decision. –DocWatson42 (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out, DocWatson42.

I served in the 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) and it was made clear to whomever would listen that calling them "green berets" was improper, they are U.S. Army Special Forces that wear a rifle-green beret as a qualification device. In DoD and those that sometimes write about us seam to follow U.S. military writing style where a lot of words are capitalized, such as Infantry, Artillery, etc. which are branch names not proper nouns. Just because it is a customary thing to do in DoD or by some journalists who mimic the U.S. military style of witting does not make it proper, does it?

As for putting titles of articles in quotes, I did not know that was a thing. There are many, many titles of citations out there that do not follow this rule. I will start putting them in quotes from now on. Thank you for the education. --McChizzle (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse order: You're welcome. ^_^ You may find this of interest, and perhaps of use.

(Parts of) the US military may frown upon the use "Green Berets" for the USSF and its (qualified) personnel, but the term is in general use. The entries in the two top English-language dictionaries as further proof:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/green%20berets

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/green_beret

https://www.lexico.com/definition/green_beret

Further dictionaries for proof (though the site's indexing is out of date): OneLook

—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if something wrong become general use, then it automatically becomes right? That does not make sense to me. --McChizzle (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally accepted by reliable sources, which imply that the term in is widespread use, so it should be included, because it is a notable fact. If you have reliable sources that demonstrate that the USSF disapproves of the colloquial term, add that fact and those sources to the "United States Army Special Forces" article. I.e., prove that the USSF believes that the use of the term is wrong. Until then, whether it's wrong or not is an unsupported opinion. However, that disapproval by a minority of a non-derogatory term should not constitute a reason to exclude the term from the article. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I've provided reliable, third party sources as the factuality of the use of "Green Berets" for the (qualified) members of the United States Special Forces, may I please reinstate my edit? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I lost track of this. Yes. --McChizzle (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (^_^) ; done. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about image caption for "United States military beret flash" page

Hiya. Was looking at the caption for the image at the top of the page of several SF guys and was a bit confused. I wasn't sure if it was a typo or not but since you're very active on the page I figured you might know. I was confused by this part:
"under the 1st Special Forces Command, how's DUI is affixed". Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]