Talk:Civil Air Patrol/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Who pays for the CAP? Does it own aircraft and ground facilities? How many permanent staff versus how man volunteers? What relationship to Air National Guard, if any? Ortolan88

I removed the sentence fragment noting that the national commanded is usually an active-duty USAF Colonel, as this has not been the case for some time. I also reworded the section involving the command structure of CAP, adding information about small wings not being divided into groups at all. Merenta 16:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

I just looked at the CAP history page at the CAP Historypage. This wiki is plagiarized. We need a new article.

Yes, it seems that despite the .gov domain this is a nonprofit corporation, not an arm of the U.S. Federal Government; it can therefore own copyright. --rbrwr^± 23:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Civil Air Patrol runs under a strange catagory. Dispite it being a nonprofit corporation, it's still under direct jurisdiction of the United States Air Force. However, I suppose the volunteer status would force the copyright issue. If no one expresses interest in creating a new page, I will do it in my spare time (har har). Linuxbeak 01:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've started creating the new page. Hopefully, it will be done within a week. I will open it back up to general editing once my revision is complete. Linuxbeak 14:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page-related discussion

I would like to note that the NMMA was canceled for 2005-2006, and from those I have talked to about it within CAP is not returning. (You may note its absence on [1].)

CAP and the Military

In my opinion, it is very important to have a section in this article that makes it very clear that the CAP is not a branch of the United States Armed Forces and that CAP members are never placed in command of active duty U.S. troops. This was actually in the article quite some time ago, but edited out long ago probably through routine cleanups and not by any design to hide this info. Anyway, this group is confusing to non U.S. folks who see it as simply a branch of the Air Force. And, as a military reservist, I cant tell you how many times Ive bumped into CAP people who demanded to know why the active military did not salute them. Not that all CAP people are like that, of course, just thats its a point of confusion within the CAP itself. -Husnock 09:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Have the changes User:Husnock suggested been made, does anybody think the article needs some further clairfication? If so, where should we put it? I know there is a section within the Cadet Programs part of the article about Cadets and the Military, but that doesn't seem like a good place to put this. It would need to be somewhere that includes all members, both seniors and cadets. Grant 03:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a question about this passage in the member section of the article:

Under the UCMJ, CAP members do not have command authority over members of the United States military. Similarly, military officers have no command authority over CAP members. As part of recognition of CAP's service to the USAF, however, CAP members are allowed to wear "U.S." as part of their uniform, and most members of the U.S. military will render military courtesy to CAP officers, though they are not required to. CAP members are required to render military courtesy to all members of U.S. and friendly foreign military personnel.

CAP members are not subject to the UCMJ since they are not members of the military. How should we update this to be more accurate in the status of CAP members? Grant 05:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the quoted excerpt is accurate as-is. The UCMJ does establish who does, and who does not, have command authority over others, and that really has nothing to do with "who is subject to the UCMJ" in the sense of who can be court-martialed. For example, the President of the United States has command authority over the military, while he himself is not "subject to the UCMJ". Perhaps this could be explained better in the article, but the accuracy is not really in question. Also, your statement about CAP members not being subject to the UCMJ is not 100% accurate. What you probably meant to say was that "CAP members are not subject to the UCMJ unless they are members of the military", since of course there are many CAP members that are also members of the armed forces. Merenta 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just felt like pointing this out. Chaplin's can be deployed overseas. --Weps

To my knowledge, CAP chaplains cannot be deployed overseas as a function of being a CAP chaplain. Of course there are CAP chaplains that have gone overseas, I know at least one, but they are being sent there as a function of being in the Army Reserve or some such, not as a CAP chaplain. --OuroborosCobra 07:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive

Looking forward to when these current debates are behind us, I want to discuss how we intend to archive this page. I think we should archive it by sub-topic, since most of the discussions seem to be on specific topics. Right now this talk page is very hard to read, and I think it would be well served from some solid cleaning. What does everybody think about making sub-pages to archive these discussions by topic? Grant 00:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. McNeight 02:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've archived all of the old discussions. I really want to archive the Eagle Award discussion and Link Dispute discussion but they have both been commented upon recently. In a week or so, if there aren't any more additions to those sections, I would like to archive them. I also left the CAP and the Military section up, since it doesn't seem like it has been addressed. We should take care of that and clean off everything left todo on the article and then attack it again to make it even better. Grant 03:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything that should be archived is archived. What's next? Grant 18:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

CAP and September 11

The claim of CAP's importance with regard to 9/11 is unfortunately overstated: the blood being flown to "victims of the attack" more than likely went unused.[2] There was a large outpouring of blood donors in NYC itself in anticipation of a large number of wounded who never materialized: most people either escaped the towers unscathed or died.

If CAP continued to fly such missions in the week following 9/11 when most civilian craft were grounded, that would be a greater claim to importance.--TidyCat 12:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This is untrue. Blood was flown directly to the WTC site using CAP aircraft, so in actuality 100% of the blood, not 1%, was transported. And the comment made below is also true. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the transporting I'm referring to; it's that the blood probably didn't get used. I did find a few mentions on CAP sites about Governor Pataki requesting CAP do flyovers and take photographs on 9/12/01; that's a reasonably strong claim to importance.

But I'd like to point out that "CAP transported blood to WTC victims" is a weak claim to importance. It's good that CAP flew the mission, but not a terribly strong claim to importance since the blood went unused.

If you or anyone else could confirm that CAP continued to fly blood transport missions across the country during the week following 9/11, that would be a stronger claim.--TidyCat 10:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The significance of CAP's 9/11 involvement was, in fact, that it continued to fly such missions nationwide in the week following 9/11 when most civilian aircraft were grounded. Previous unsigned comment by User:71.37.74.55 04:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ranger School Text

Today, the Civil Air Patrol Search and Rescue missions are conducted by an elite team of highly trained Senior Members and Cadets. The Ranger program is a comprehensive training program with a Air Force designed curriculum. The training takes place at two locations. One, is the well known "Hawk Mountain Ranger School" located in Pennsylvania. The other school is located on a small former missile base in South Florida, otherwise known as the "Falcon Ranger School". Both schools offer the same intense training. The curriculum includes basic to advanced survival techniques, medical assistance training, basic to advanced navigation, and basic to advanced search and rescue theory. Ranger school takes place once a month except during the winter and summer in which a 9 day activity takes place for medic and/or staff trainees. Each Ranger trainee is required to prove their knowledge and skill through numerous tests before they receive their Search and Rescue patch. After receiving the Ranger 2nd Class rating or "R2", they then may begin other training courses such as medic and staff training (the hardest of the two). The final level is "Master Ranger", the notorious "black shirts" or "black belts" of the Civil Air Patrol. Very few have reached that level. To see the list, refer to the Hawk Mountain Ranger School website. Typical R2 training lasts about eight to ten months, and the drop out rate is the highest among the various activities in the Civil Air Patrol.

So, what to do? In some areas, this would merit an article all by itself. It seems that Florida Wing has copied the Hawk Mountain model and "made it their own". Compare http://pawg.cap.gov/hawk/ with http://www.flrangers.com/. Should there perhaps be a separate article for detailed information about Ranger training? McNeight 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please make a not that distinguishes that this training is far less strenuous and difficult than the US Army Ranger School training. Swatjester 23:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, duh. (I mean this in the nicest way possible, of course ;-) )Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mitchell Awardees get E-3 in Air Force and E-2 in Army, Navy, and Marine Corps

Call a recruiter to be sure. Ask about the 'Advance paygrade Enlistment Statement of Understanding" and Navy Regulation: NAVCRUIT 1133.101 and you will see that this information is correct. Despite the fact that McNeight wants to delete anything I contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T`sitra Yel Darb (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

SO CLOSE! God, you almost made a meaningful edit complete with a reference and everything! Unfortunately, this is what you get for making a phone call instead of doing the research yourself. See, NAVCRUIT 1133.101 is a form. Just because there is a checkbox on a recruiters form doesn't mean that there is a regulation stating a fact. The actual reference is COMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1130.8F, Chapter 4, Section 4C-2, paragraph d.

Since I've already done the work for you, I won't go to the trouble of deleting your edit. However, your "page" about NAVCRUIT 1133.101 is not only non-encyclopedic, but your attempt to make it a "reference" is truly laughable. McNeight 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-adding 102nd Composite Squadron reference

This was already discussed (see the link dispute talk page), and apparently someone removed this quietly and without me noticing. I'm going to readd it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

June 2nd?

I was listening to AFN Radio today, and it had a "This Day in History" public announcement for June 2nd. It mentioned something about the Civil Air Patrol being granted some type of wartime authority/mission on June the 2nd. I didn't hear the year, but I think it might have been in the 1970s. I wish I could have heard the whole thing, but it was on a radio playing in the background and I missed it. Anyone have any clue as to what it might be?

→To the best of my memory, there is no major event that happened on the 2nd of June that affected CAP as a whole. CAP went into coastal patrol during World War II (it was created 6 days before Pearl Harbor). It also did border patrol, and aided in the training of army units for combat. However, all of these programs started and ended in other months than June. Perhaps whatever you heard on the radio was for a local unit.

History

Someone should mention Flood of 1993 in Missouri, I don't have the facts at hand but it was certainly a significant event for CAP nationwide, involving the first CAP airspace management program ever allowed by the FAA.

Space Camp/Aviation Challenge on NCSA List

Should 'Space Camp/Aviation Challenge' remain on the NCSA list, since it is not a CAP activity, and the only major affiliation is that you can wear the NCSA ribbon for attending?JColgan 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

→Yes, it is stated on the official website that it is, indeed, a NCSA activity, although applications, etc. are not processed by CAP.

Senior Members

Under Civil_Air_Patrol#Senior_members, this should be edited: 'Senior members are those who are over 21 years old, or who joined CAP for the first time past the age of 18.' Anyone 18-20 can be a flight officer, and the majority of flight officers are cadets who become senior members before age 21. JColgan 01:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Well, what's stopping you? ;-) Seriously, though, if you feel that it needs to be changed, go ahead. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 01:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I didn't like any of the possible revisions I had in my head, so I figured somebody else would come up with something that sounds nice. JColgan 01:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is confusing to me as well. Can a cadet that turns 18 request becoming a senior member or if he/she was in the cadet program before turning 18, does he/she have to stay in the Cadet program until turning 21? Does this mean that some guy coming in at 18 becoming a senior member outranks a cadet that's in the 18-21 age bracket? Ripberger 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Any cadet, upon turning 18, can request to become a senior member. They have the option to do that at any time from when they turn 18 until they turn 21, and are required to become a senior member. Yes, when they become senior members they outrank any cadets, including those in the 18-21 age bracket, since all senior members outrank all cadets. Yes, this can cause problems where an 18 year old senior member outranks a 20 year old cadet. On the whole, this is just a matter of both parties needing to be mature enough to deal with it. --OuroborosCobra 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

When I was a cadet in the mid '70s, it was my experience that younger senior members were generally not put in a position where they were directly supervising cadets, although, there were (and probably still are) exceptions. --rogerd 04:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That is still the general practice (at least in good units), but is not required by regulations. --OuroborosCobra 19:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong Achievement

this award has been tagged for merge into the main article for the CAP. shall we leave it with the article for all of the other awards, instead? -Lordraydens 09:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Flight Officer Insignia

i found some hi-res images for all 3 ranks of flight officer. they are from an official CAP site so if somebody whos in wants to grab them and throw them into the insignia table...

http://bncadets.miwg.cap.gov/gallery/senior/insignia/fligthofficer.gif (notice the file name is misspelled) http://bncadets.miwg.cap.gov/gallery/senior/insignia/techflightofficer.gif http://bncadets.miwg.cap.gov/gallery/senior/insignia/seniorflightofficer.gif

-Lordraydens 11:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. -- Scetoaux 00:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Largest squadron

Hey, I was wondering which squadron is the biggest. If you could find that out I would appriciate it (I'm not that good at finding sources and I'm a tad busy--Cadet hastings 04:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cadet, this is not a chat forum. Talk pages are for discussing facets of the article, not CAP in general. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't think asking what the largest squadron was was chatting, I still fail to see how it is chatting on the discussion page though... I just was wondering, and I could not find it in the article so I asked here.--Cadet hastings 13:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Cadet. It wasn't intended as criticism, just to point out how these pages work. I just noticed that someone had changed the formatting of this page to imply that non-article subjects could be discussed, and I've changed this back. Talk pages are intended for discussion and commentary on issued affecting the article, and not for general question-and-answer or chat sessions. I would direct you to CAP Talk forums for this. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Attempt

Hi everyone. It would mean a LOT to me if this article was edited to such a state that we would be able to nominate this thing for featured article status. If anyone is interested, throw me a message on my talk page and post your interest here. Linuxbeak 20:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I seriously think that this article is ready for featured article status! Linuxbeak 20:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

YES!!! FEATURED ARTICLE!!! Linuxbeak 03:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Current Status

1. Start a new article: Completed!
2. Do some research: Completed!
3. Write a great article: Completed!
4. Check against the featured article criteria: Completed!
5. Get creative feedback: We are currently getting peer reviewed. Completed!
6. Apply for featured article status: Completed!
7. Featured articles: COMPLETED!

Final results: 7 support, 0 object, 0 neutral

Tasks to be completed

We currently need the following tasks to be completed before we can even think about nominating this page for featured article status:

1. Perhaps a list of Wings and their patches?
2. Adding ribbon table (cadet and senior).
3. Adding badge table (such as the various types of wings (pilot, observer, glider, etc) and other badges).

• On retrospective... the article is already huge. We don't need these in the same article. Linuxbeak 20:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the above list. Linuxbeak 20:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Things that have been [constructively] complained about

1. References not listed/seperated from external links
2. Too many short paragraphs
3. Too many lists

Introduction Dispute

I tightened up the introduction - which hadn't been changed since before the extensive history was added - by removing pieces of fairly in-depth historical information that were included are the history and you stuck them back in there. We also have some conflicts on what should and should not be included as links. Plus, Linuxbeak, I notice that all the links to your squadron's page that you maintain are back. I say we've got some issues here and I'm going to the Third Opinion page for a neutral opinion. - NetSerfer 13:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't currently maintain the squadron website for your information sir. Phr3d 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh, okay, thanks, I guess... NetSerfer 18:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Time to split the article..?

It's really friggin' big. Easily the biggest article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's probably time to split the History and Cadet Program sections off into their own articles. With no objections, I'll probably jump on that in the next few days. NetSerfer 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have an objection. Please understand I'm not trying to be difficult. There are plenty of other articles that are about the same size or longer than this one (such as President of the United States, World War II, World War I, Star Wars, Linux, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, United States, Jesus, Christianity... etc etc etc). Splitting the article would, if anything, hurt it, and it would nullify its featured article status (which I am in no hurry to see leave). Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's getting a tad tough to navigate in there and I can see a lot of areas that need further expansion (especially Cadet Program and History). Now seemed like as good a time as any... ==> NetSerfer 19:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, the History section really rocks now! I have a coupla minor queries about stuff that I think needs to be made clearer for readers as ignorant as myself:

Birth of the Civil Air Patrol. What's an "aviation writer" (as in Wilson)? That's a concept? Pilot Training and the Cadet Program. Uh, you're supposed to need "indoctrination" to become a licenced pilot, really...?

(And quite a few commented-out minor comments, too, but i know you've got those in hand.)--Bishonen | talk 16:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I made an editing pass at this article tonight, mostly to the organization section, adding a paragraph on the Board of Governors and NHQ, along with some general re-organization and fixing some innaccuracies. The Cadet Programs section is still a bit of a mess, sounds like the perspective of a Phase II cadet almost (no offense intended, I was one once myself). -- Matt Johnson <mattj@spaatz.org> talk

Links Dispute

I noticed that CAPblog was linked as an external link, does that mean that Auxiliary Power Journal, Cadet Power Journal, Civil Airman and Flying Minutemen should also be included as extrnal links? Personally I think that none of these should be linked. --Grant Henninger 23:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Why shouldn't they be included? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

They shouldn't be included because they are not part of the official organization of CAP. There are dozens and dozens of private and personal pages that are about CAP and it isn't the job of this page - nor Wikipedia - to reference them all. And, since we can't reference them all, then by rights we shouldn't reference any of them unless they are, in some way, exceptionally significant. None of these are, including CadetStuff. -- NetSerfer

I agree with NetSerfer here, if people want to find blogs related to CAP they can just Google for them. I don't think it's the role of Wikipedia to list them all here. Are there other articles on Wikipedia that do have a list of blogs and other personal sites in the external links? --Grant Henninger 16:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia guidelines, we've got two votes to one on the links. I'm going to restore them to the last major edit. Anyone care to cast a tie-breaker on the introduction? NetSerfer 18:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Although you may have a point with the blogs, I do not agree with you removing the references. Information from *before* I was the webmaster of that site was used. Plus, that same site has donated images to this article in the past, so it's rightfully a reference. It doesn't matter if I'm the webmaster or not; it's still factual. Please see the Featured Article Candidate discussion when references were discussed, and please do not remove the references again, because I will put them back. It's not a threat, but I know I'm right in this case. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing on your squadron web site that is a significant reference in and of itself. CAP squadrons receive all directive and publications of significance from central authority. To reference any squadron is self-serving twaddle. Anyway, if you're right about linking your squadron, then let's go get some mediation. NetSerfer 11:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Self-serving twaddle? I'm going to ignore the fact that that could be considered a personal attack for right now. It appears that you are a relatively new editor (seeing that you've only got 166 article edits under your belt), so I'm going to assume good faith and suggest reading up on Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you want to start a mediation case, by all means go ahead, but it will only be a waste of your time as well as mine. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, self-serving twaddle. A personal attack? Not according to the definitions. First, let's address the 'references' in question. A reference should accomplish the following:

• Giving credit to a source for providing useful information.
• Providing more information to curious readers.
• Convincing skeptical readers that the article is accurate.
• Helping other editors quickly verify facts, especially in cases of sneaky vandalism.
• Preventing and resolving editorial disputes.
• Establishing general credibility for Wikipedia.
• Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty.

If the reference to RI-102 does anything on that list, it's Giving credit to a source for providing useful information. However, as I stated, there is nothing on that site that didn't come from NHQ and there is no reason to link in one particular squadron's site when there are dozens of contributors (representing dozens of sites) to this page. You want we should link them all?

Calling the link self-serving twaddle seems to have nothing in common with the discrete list or even the spirit of a 'personal attack' according to Wikipedia. It was a characterization of the post, not of the person making the post; labelling it as: Empty or silly talk or writing, serving one's own interests.

Okey dokey, sounds like you're all for mediation. I'll get the ball rolling... Actually, I'll tell you what: in the spirit of cooperation, please point out to me which sections of the CAP article are based on references from the RI-102 site. If you can justify it, I'll withdraw my objections. NetSerfer 14:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I still think that "self-serving twaddle" is a personal attack, and I am quite comfortable saying that a number of other seasoned editors would agree. Anyway, although I find it a bit humourous that you're the one who's demanding answers from me, I'll give you what you want.

1. Every cadet grade image displayed is from the 102nd's website
2. The image of N9824L is from the 102nd's website (in fact, that was a picture that I took)
3. The entirety of the sections concerning emergency services, cadet programs, and aerospace education, are all heavily adapted from the 102nd's website
4. Although not listed on this page, every ribbon graphic in Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol is directly adapted from images directly taken from the 102nd's webpage

That's enough for me to sleep easy knowing that I provided the 102nd's webpage as a reference. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

And... "Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty." is key in reason number 3. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to pursue a 'personal attack' complaint, knock yourself out. This isn't about you, it's about this resource and what I consider to be your unfair use of it. Find my demands as humorous as you like, but as far as content is concerned we have equal standing here. Now, your points:

1. Some of the items you've listed as being from the 102nd's website (ribbon images, grade images) are not in and of themselves owned or unique to that site. They are available from any number of sources, including NER's 'rack builder' site, and could very easily be replaced from there.
2. The image of N9824L itself should be referenced back to you. That doesn't justify a link to RI-102 on every wikipage that might use that image. (Besides which, it's not that good an image: it's not well lit and the A/C in question isn't in CAP's preferred livery. The page would probably be better served by replacing it.)
3. Considering the extremely heavy editing that's been done on the page since you pulled sections from RI-102, I don't think your characterization of them as 'heavily adapted' is reasonable. They differ materially and significantly from that initial pull.
4. Citing reason 3 - Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty. - is specious at best, since the images you claim (except for N9824L) as key to your arguments are taken from other sites and are being used here under 'fair use' or as public domain. RI-102 didn't create those ribbons or grades and you didn't create those images. Plagiarism isn't an issue for the simple reason that the article has been so heavily edited that your initial sections are unrecognisable.

Beak, I honestly think you're too close to the issue and I'd prefer to work this out here - especially since we've already resolved this dispute once with a two-to-one vote in favor of trimming the reference links. However, if you're still up for mediation, I'm all about it. NetSerfer 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Okey doke, I can see that you made an edit to the article, which means you've had a chance to see this and make a final decision on what you want to do. I guess I'll start the ball rolling... NetSerfer 13:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Read WP:NOT and read up on the section that says "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Also... as far as I can tell, it appears that this "second" vote that you cite from Grant Henninger doesn't even mention the references. So, as far as I can tell, you're down to 1 vs. 1. I'm on IRC right now, and I'm getting some people to look at the article as I type to see if the reference is appropriate. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why these links should be removed. They were used as sources and should be cited as such. Alphax ^τεχ 13:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I also cannot see why the links in question should be removed. They in no way tarnish the credibility of the article or Wikipedia, and in fact seem to add something to the article. They are used as references, no more. And nobody is forcing a person to look at the link, it is just an option. Firestorm 13:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So, there you have it. 3 against 1, and both from active editors. If you think it's not enough, I can find more people to back me up on this one, NetSerfer. Another thing: I happened to create those ribbons you see on that page, thank you. Compare the ribbons on Wikipedia to the ones on the ribbon rack page... and look carefully. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I also think that the links should stay. --Phroziac ^(talk) 14:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing on your squadron web site that is a significant reference in and of itself. CAP squadrons receive all directive and publications of significance from central authority. To reference any squadron is self-serving twaddle. Anyway, if you're right about linking your squadron, then let's go get some mediation. NetSerfer 11:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That's bull. You're arguing that the only links that have to be included are those from official mouthpieces. That's like saying that the only info about the CIA and its (mis)operations has to come from the Public Relations office of the CIA. Nonsence, keep the links. It had to be played on the Jukebox. Project2501a 14:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Even though I've withdrawn, I will answer this by saying that since RI-102 website is CAPR-110 compliant, there can be nothing on it that isn't approved by CAP and that anything on it that isn't approved will be immediately taken down by orders of the chain of command. That's why putting a squadron web site on this page is 'self-serving twaddle'. If you want to put up dissenting opinions, then start linking in some of the very critical member blogs. But, that would seemingly violate NPOV. NetSerfer 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Okey doke, I can play well with others. I withdraw my objection. NetSerfer 14:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should silt the two! - CAP cadet —preceding unsigned comment by 71.41.42.44 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove content such as links or one line additions from this article. This is considered vandalism! At the least the added link isn't "self-serving twaddle," so it should be left alone---even by the great author himself!! After all---anyone can edit on Wikipedia---but admin-types shouldn't vandalize valid additions. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that if the author of an article felt threatened when others corrected him that he was able to remove their comments?! I certainly think that most rational people would let the masses decide for themselves instead of cleansing away the criticism!! Is that responsible journalistic behavior?? —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from further removal of my improvements that did not compromise your previous work. Removal of valid and reasonable additions is considered vandalism. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that removing my link is vandalism. It is hard to find on the NATIONAL site---as for it being redundant---well---unit sites can be found through the NHQ site and therefore the link to the RI-102 is, perhaps, also redundant?! —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

http://cadetstuff.org/store/ This link has commercial sales----is that appropriate for this setting?? —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC) http://cadetstuff.org/store/csl101a.htm —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Fire Balloons

Added a sentence about CAP members patrolling for japanese fire ballons in WWII. When I was a cadet, one of the older CAP members in the Wing (MT) used to tell stories about riding around in his plane with a shotgun looking for these. Unfortunatly, the gentleman passed away several years ago and I don't have any further information. Hopefully someone can elaborate on this. —preceding unsigned comment by 24.214.89.26 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This is very interesting. Would you be able to provide a print or online source for this? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, like I said I don't have any further information, but if you know any senior members up in Montana they probably know who I'm talking about. I've lost touch with most everyone I knew from CAP. You might try cadetstuff.org and see if anyone there has any information, I'll ask my father and see what he remembers. —preceding unsigned comment by 24.214.89.26 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Mitchell vs. Spaatz vs. Eagle Scout

I have changed this several times and it keeps changing back: The Gen Spaatz Award is the equivalent of the Eagle Scout----NOT the Gen Mitchell Award as listed in the article. I have been a member of CAP for over 18 years and the Commander of a CAP Cadet Squadron for many of them and I can assure you that I am correct in my facts!!! Please do not change it back!!! Thank you!! SEMPER VIGILANS —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the editor who is largely responsible for the featured article status of this article as well as the upkeep. I am a CAP cadet, and I disagree with your arguement. A Mitchell cadet may enlist and be given a paygrade of E-3, while an Eagle Scout may enlist and be given a paygrade of E-2. I am not disagreeing on the basis that the Spaatz is the highest CAP cadet award as the rank of Eagle is the highest Scouting award. If you want to compare based on percentage, the Eaker would actually be equivilant to the Eagle (as approx. 2% of all cadets get to Eaker; this is the same as the Eagle). So, unless there is an official statement from National indicating that a certain cadet grade is their equivilant of the Eagle rank, then I am reverting you. Please provide a source for your arguement. Also, please don't take over a topic but instead create your own. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well---CADET---you are incorrect and this site shows it! http://www.cawg.cap.gov/html/CP/Scouting.htm —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

How so? I don't see a single thing that says that the Spaatz is equivalent to the Eagle. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 18:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

And that's not from National. That's from California Wing. I said cite me something from National. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 18:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

CALL--CAP HQ Cadet Program 334.953.7568 When applying for the Air Force Academy you are asked: Have you received the Eagle Scout Award or the General Spaatz Award? This seems like equivalency to me!! —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cap.gov/visitors/about/national_headquarters/hq_contacts.cfm —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Without modifying content, I have created a new subsection for this... issue. To the anonymous user who insists that the Eagle Scout and Spaatz Award are equivalent, you truly do need to calm down and look at the documented facts. Why? Because according to CAP National Headquarters, the US Air Force, and the US Air Force Academy, you are wrong. McNeight 02:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep your personal comments to yourself. I called--did you?? {If you would like to investigate this matter further please contact CAP Nat'l HQ Cadet Program at (334) 953-7568 or via eMail at keasterling@capnhq.gov} —preceding unsigned comment by Braaad (talk • contribs) 18:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Further---call a recruiter--you can enter the Air Force at E-3 with the Mitchel---but only E-2 in the other branches. You really should do better, more accurate, research before insisting that a Major with 18 years of experience as DCOC is wrong and needs to calm down...that is a very RUDE tone to take. There is dispute---yes---but your accuracy is flawed and I joined CAP before you were born! —preceding unsigned comment by Braaad (talk • contribs) 19:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Major, you are on Wikipedia and as such you have absolutely no authority or jurisdiction over anyone, including myself. I am a CAP cadet, but this isn't CAP; this is Wikipedia. You just told a Wikipedia editor (McNeight) to zip it, and you just made me, a Wikipedia administrator, annoyed because of it. This is not "your" article, and McNeight is completely authorized to counter your point, especially if it's wrong. How about you provide an emailed response from National? We're not going to do it, so if you want to provide us with a good source that proves you right, you go right ahead. Do not continue inserting that phone number into the article, because it does not belong there. If you continue to disrupt the article, and more importantly, try to bully other Wikipedia editors, I will block you for 24 hours.

Furthermore, I find your comment about taking a very rude tone to be a bit ironic, seeing you just told someone to "keep their personal comments to themselves." I am the person who WROTE this damn article. I am willing to admit when I'm wrong (are you?), but unless you prove me wrong (and so far you haven't), then I will continue to revert you. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that voicing a truth would be considered bullying anyone. Do my words threaten you? Also, I didn't ask for or expect your respect, kid, but--you seem to be unable to admit you are wrong about one thing--Mitchell gets you E-3 in the USAF and E-2 in all other branches. Further, why can't you leave the contact info for NHQ and let people make thier own decision? Are you sure you are mature enough to handle the responsibility it take to be the author of this article? Perhaps a call to your local recruiter will actually make you realize one of your errors. As for the Eagle equivalence---I no longer care. You have a great day now, youngster. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that voicing your take on the matter was bullying; I said to not tell other editors to stay out of it. That's bullying. Your words do not threaten me at all, but when you tell other people to keep their personal comments to themselves, that's not exactly fair to those who have worked on this. I want you to provide me with actual references and not just what you say to be correct with what you're claiming. I'm damn mature enough to know that putting a phone number inside an article for the purpose that you are putting it for is unencyclopedic and does not belong. That's why I kept removing it. The discussion page is the place for stuff like that. So, for all intents and purposes, yes. I am mature enough to be the person who wrote this, and even if I wasn't "mature enough", it's irrelevant because I already did. This conversation is now over. If you want to follow the proper Wikipedia policy on making changes, then by all means do. But don't expect me to let you edit something which you can not verify and present evidence besides a phone number. I'm not going to call it, and neither will the vast majority of article readers. Get over it. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 20:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well--then I challenge you---show me anything from NHQ that supports your insistance that I am wrong. Be a 'damn' adult and prove that I am wrong. I'll bet you can't!! Good luck with your anger-management skills. p.s. Does using 'damn' in your responses to me make you feel like a grown-up?? —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you seem so insistent on being right, perhaps I should fully debrief you on just precisely why you are wrong?

First, you are wrong because you can't follow the flow of a conversation. I joined CAP in 1986, served as both cadet and senior member, earned positions on squadron, group and wing staff and personally achieved both the Mitchell and Earhart awards. The "personal comments" you refer to belong to me, not Linuxbeak. Perhaps the attempts by Linuxbeak to moderate your tone have failed because you think you are talking to only one person?

Second, you are wrong because you have to resort to bragging about your status in order to prove yourself right. Attempting to throw your weight around in this kind of public forum, by declaring your years of service or current staff position, will result in multiple people laughing at you. Any further attempts at intimidation either by age or "maturity" will result in ongoing public mockery.

Third, you are wrong because you can't read the comments embedded in the history of the document you are attempting to edit. You continuously attempt to "correct" an article that, while perhaps not completely correct, was not wrong. Linuxbeak has even gone so far as to incorporate some of your issues into the text of the article, as they do have some merit. However, that does not give you licence to continuously abuse, nor does it give you the right to crow about it.

Fourth, you are wrong because you can't follow embedded links. Above, I linked to pages at CAP National Headquarters (http://level2.cap.gov/index.cfm?nodeID=5156), the United States Air Force (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=163), and the United States Air Force Academy (http://academyadmissions.com/admissions/preparation/leadership_prep.php). All three links support the statement that the military considers the Mitchell Award and the Eagle Scout award equivalent for purposes of recruitment.

Fifth, you are wrong because, beyond recruitment, the military does not care about Mitchell Awards, Spaatz Awards or Eagle Scouts. You can't wear any of them on a US military service uniform (and no, that does not include ROTC), no record of it is kept in your DD214, and no self-respecting soldier would continue to define themselves strictly based on an achievement made in high school.

Finally, you are wrong because even you proved that you are wrong! Your original argument was that "The Gen Spaatz Award is the equivalent of the Eagle Scout". After pointing out that you were wrong, instead of admitting it and continuing a civil discussion as to why the Spaatz Award and Eagle Scout are comparable, you degenerated to bullying and confusing the issue by nitpicking. That the Army, Navy and Marine Corps will give a pay grade of E-2 to either a Mitchell Awardee or an Eagle Scout only further proves that your original statement is false and that, for those branches of the military, the Mitchell Award and Eagle Scout are exactly equivalent.

If you really, truly want to keep embarassing yourself, perhaps you should dedicate a separate page to it. McNeight 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Anything that I was about to say has already been said. Thank you, McNeight. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I bow down to your superior maturity. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove content such as references from this article. This is considered vandalism and if it continues, you will be issued a 24-hour block. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove content such as links or one line additions from this article. This is considered vandalism! At the least the added link isn't "self-serving twaddle," so it should be left alone---even by the great author himself!! After all---anyone can edit on Wikipedia---but admin-types shouldn't vandalize valid additions. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My one line addition is totally factual and clarifies your lengthy commentary. Removal of it will be grounds for further complaints about the tone of the rebuttals by the author/s. ANYONE can edit on Wikipedia--removal of valid, single line clarifications is NOT acceptable behavior---even for a mature and reasonable author. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

FACT: A former cadet who enters the United States Army, United States Marine Corps, or the United States Navy will enter at paygrade E-2. (NOT E-3) Please contact your local recruiter to verify and then fix your error. See my reference below from the text of Mr McKnight's comments above. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

After pointing out that you were wrong, instead of admitting it and continuing a civil discussion as to why the Spaatz Award and Eagle Scout are comparable, you degenerated to bullying and confusing the issue by nitpicking. That the Army, Navy and Marine Corps will give a pay grade of E-2 to either a Mitchell Awardee or an Eagle Scout only further proves that your original statement is false and that, for those branches of the military, the Mitchell Award and Eagle Scout are exactly equivalent. -----And still you refuse to fix the error??? —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 December 2005

The unsigned comment is actually a quote from McNeight as seen above. I'm confussed now---who is the bully?? —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 06:36, December 5, 2005

In this case, your are still the loud-mouthed bully, complaining about abuses that are legendary in your own mind. However, as far as adding signatures to your pseudo-anonymous postings, in this case it was Nlu. McNeight 18:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

FACT: Civil Air Patrol's National Headquarters makes no official statement about equivalency. Please refrain from changing my VITAL addition to your lenghty dialogue. After all, the whole section is merely opinion---is that encyclopedic??? My addition is correct and grammatical; reversion of it would be vandalism. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

FACT: A former cadet who enters the United States Army, United States Marine Corps, or the United States Navy will enter at paygrade E-2. (NOT E-3) Please contact your local recruiter to verify and then fix your error. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 10:47, December 5, 2005

If you are so insistent on this being correct, and can prove that it is correct, then why don't you make the changes to the article and see who reverts your edits? McNeight 18:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Everybody, again, tone this down. Anybody got any published resources or established Web links that shows one way or another? As discussed below, no edit wars again on this. --Nlu 18:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)\

As a matter of fact, yes. The official regulation stating that someone with a Mitchell Award can enter the Air Force at a pay grade of E-3, while an Eagle Scout can enter at a pay grade of E-2, is listed in Air Force Recruiting Service Instruction (AFRSI) 36-2001, 01 APR 2005, Table 2.1, Rule #8. A PDF of the regulation is available at http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/afrs/36/afrsi36-2001/afrsi36-2001.pdf McNeight 18:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

May I ask why it matters? The way the paragraph is written right now isn't informative at all. If somebody that doesn't know anything about CAP comes and reads the article they will be given three options on what is equivalent to being an Eagle Scout, that's not too helpful. Equivalency should be, at most, a one sentence topic since it isn't that important to the overall article on CAP. What should be included is the benefits cadets and seniors get at each grade. We should include what pay-grades cadets get for each Award in the various services and we should also include the things Senior Members get to do like attend Air War College because of their CAP grade (of course that would go in the Senior Member section). I'm not going to stick my neck out and make these changes without some people agreeing with me, but I think these would be the right changes to make and would let us avoid this entire debate. Grant 19:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you. Originally, there was a single sentence within the paragraph starting with 'The major awards' (reference http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Civil_Air_Patrol&oldid=29374670#Structure) that read:

"The Billy Mitchell Award is considered by the US military to be the equivalent of the Eagle Scout designation."

Both Vandy and Linuxbeak reverted the "contributions" by users Braaad and 68.112.201.90, who both stated that the Spaatz Award is equivalent to the Eagle Scout. After 68.112.201.90 complained of being reverted too often for being wrong, Linuxbeak inserted the current paragraph about equivalency in an effort to be fair.

Reading the full length of this thread, which 68.112.201.90 has attempted to delete on multiple occasions, you can see the lenghts to which this user will go in order to continue an argument. Now, 68.112.201.90 has decided that because he is often wrong, that we should pay attention to him the few times he might be correct.

He offers no documentation or proof of his claims other than "call someone else about it", and persistently whines about being persecuted while being abusive towards all other points of view.

Effectively, an anonymous user with a large mouth is dictating content by complaining about how nobody is listening to the wrong opinion. I would be completely happy to delete the entire paragraph and go back to the single sentence which simply stated that the military consideres the Mitchell Award to be equivalent to the Eagle Scout, which is the truth. McNeight 19:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does that sentence need to be included at all? Why not say that the US Air Force gives Mitchell Award recipients the grade of E-3 upon joining and the other services give them E-2, and leave out anything about the Eagle Scout equivalency? Grant 19:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the Eagle Scout reference was originally "shorthand" for the fact that military recruiters will give an increased pay rate for Eagle Scouts, assuming that this is common knowledge. In the end, really, you are correct. There doesn't need to be any mention of Eagle Scouts, and the simple sentence you suggested works just fine. McNeight 19:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

NO EQUIVALENCY CAN BE SHOWN IN ANY CAP DOCUMENTS —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. What I am proposing is the removal of all references about any CAP Award being equivalent to being an Eagle Scout. Instead, we should include the benefits of each award, such as the fact that a Mitchell recipient will enter the Air Force as an E-3 upon enlistment. What do you think of making these changes? Grant 22:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you GRANT!! Question: Are the comments by Linuxbeak and McNeight personal attacks? They sure seem to be angry at me for showing that they are not actually right...and that the whole matter is pointless. I sure hope that they can refrain from the insults. Aren't personal attacks against Wikipedia policy?? —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Even after all this there are still factual errors in the article!! FACT: A former cadet who enters the United States Army, United States Marine Corps, or the United States Navy will enter at paygrade E-2. (NOT E-3) Please contact your local recruiter to verify and then fix your error. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(Please sign your edits, 68.112.201.90; it's very difficult to follow otherwise.)

My question is still this: do you have documentation? I don't personally have expertise to judge, and that is why we need documentation. --Nlu 22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Nlu, here is the documentation I have found so far: AR 601-210 states, "Has completed all phase II requirements of the Air Force Civil Air Patrol and has been awarded the Billy Mitchell Award may enlist at any time at pay grade PV2." AETCI 36-2002 states, "If the applicant...Was awarded the Billy Mitchell, Amelia Earhart, or Carl Spaatz award or has a letter from CAP/AF/TTHE, Maxwell AFB AL, certifying successful completion of award requirements...then the grade will be...Airman First Class (A1C)". I haven't yet found the documents for the Navy, Marines or Coast Guard, but I will point them out when I find the. Grant 22:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to be known by my address. So--is saying that I have a "large mouth" a personal attack?? Golly gee--I sure wish I was as grown up as McNeight!! —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe Linuxbeak or McNeight have made any personal attacks against you. They got a bit heated in their discussion in places, I will grant, but I do not see any personal attacks that they made. If anything, they failed to assume good faith in your edits and arguments for your edits. However, this was because you came off as hostile and were prone to yelling. Please understand, I am not taking sides in this debate, I'm just saying how your actions appeared to others, not the intent behind them. I'm just trying to find a compromise and help improve this article utilizing everybody's suggestions.

In any case, you are right, other services besides the AF do not give Mitchell recipients E-3 when they enlist. This is something I stated when I originally proposed my compromise. Part of taking out the statement about Eagle Scout equivalency is that we can and should be more precise in what cadets receive for each award Grant 22:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

PERSONAL ATTACK BY McNeight: In this case, your are still the loud-mouthed bully, complaining about abuses that are legendary in your own mind. However, as far as adding signatures to your pseudo-anonymous postings, in this case it was Nlu. McNeight 18:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Loud-mouthed bully----sounds kinda personal to me!! —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made the changes that I thought appropriate as I had discussed before. Feel free to make any changes you feel are necessary but please do not include anything about any CAP award being equivalent to being an Eagle Scout unless you can show some documentation saying that is the case. Grant 23:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Tune this down, please

Everyone, take a step back and calm down. A WP:3RR violation has occurred, although I am not going to block yet, depending on the subsequent behavior, since there was no prior warning. However, regardless of whether a block happens, if this keeps up, I will protect the page from editing. --Nlu 01:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify; no WP:3RR violation has happened today. The violation was in the past, and that's another reason not to block right now, but folks, please do turn it down. --Nlu 01:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My legitimate edits have been continually reverted by Linuxbeak and McNeight.....perhaps they are the problem?? If you truly read the discussions you will see that I am, perhaps, a bit obnoxious---but---they are able to close down my legitimate points without regard and that seems like dictatorial arrogance to me. I am shocked at their incredibly unprofessional words. I may be abbrasive but one or both of them have used cuss words and been EXTREMLY unwilling to admit that the article has factual errors. I will not waste more time---but you should take a solid look at how many times they have reverted me. I am a nobody--a novice to Wikipedia--they are supposedly adults who just refuse to admit fault. Yeah--it's a good article--but that doesn't endow the author or his cronies with superior abilities or rights---does it?? Look at some of the responses to OTHER people besides me. I am disgusted by the whole matter. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 December 2005

I am not qualified to judge whose version is the "correct" one. I can only enforce the 3RR rule so that this article doesn't fall into an overly heated edit war. There are ways in which you can get other people's input to see if you will get your version accepted. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Nlu 09:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank yo for your input, Nlu I hope that the FACTS will speak for themselves. A simple call to CAP NHQ will verify that my comment is correct. There is NO official statement about equivalency and that is a fact, not my opinion. I would reissue the challenge to the author to produce ANY factual references to show otherwise. The whole section on equvalency is the opinion and speculation of the author. Perhaps the author should check the FACTS before reverting my edits?? I hope that the author and his friends can acknowledge that their opinions are NOT the FACTS of the matter and be more professional. I do not think that speculative opinions are worthy of of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 15:44, December 5, 2005 (UTC)

More about 3RR

By my count, the next revert on this page is going to be a 3RR violation. Be warned. --Nlu 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. Going back further, I've determined that 68.112.201.90 has violated 3RR. He will therefore be blocked. McNeight, be forwarned that your next revert will be a 3RR violation as well. --Nlu 23:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood, but no further reverts are needed. McNeight 23:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)