User talk:AzureCitizen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Battle Assembly edits[edit]

Azure, nice work on the revisions to my Battle Assembly article. Thanks for that. --Eplack 11:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad they were appreciated. It's a good term article that you wrote; for most non-USAR folks, the term is probably unknown. -- AzureCitizen 03:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You're certainly correct about that. Just about everyone that talked to me about my work in the Reserve calls everything we do Drill. From Basic Training to Annual Training. Even PT... Everything is just "Drill" to them. Well I hope they can look up battle assembly on wikipedia next time I mention it. --Eplack 09:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Looking back, I think you deserve this for your contributions to the article. -- Eplack136.160.144.217 (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Good edit. Changing it to cavalry commander bypasses any future drama on the topic that might occur. SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger that, thanks. Real quick, what do you think of editing the John Allen Muhammad entry from "Beltway Sniper", Gulf war veteran, former NOI member to just Convicted "Beltway Sniper", or something similar? It seems the "veteran" or "Nation of Islam member" parts are just incidentals and not really things that made him a famous former soldier, i.e., everyone in that section is a veteran, ourselves included. Just a thought. -- AzureCitizen 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle assembly article getting promoted![edit]

Azure, after we've both added a lot to the battle assembly article, I submitted it for peer review from the Military History WikiProject. So far, it's been rated "start" head over and check out the discussion page and maybe we can bump it up a notch or two. --Eplack 08:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved article[edit]

I have moved the discussion in reference to United States Cavalry to the discussion page of the article discussion page in order to keep the messages in one consolidated location, which can be found -TabooTikiGod 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Scope of Counterintelligence[edit]

Contents of Discussion

Yes, the US intelligence community page uses the limited definition of counterintelligence. You'll note, however, that this definition disagrees with JCS Pub 1-02 and other doctrinal guides, both US and non-US. I think that USIB definition is dangerous, and wanted to present it a broader context, specifically that it is redefining and restricting responsibility. I would very much like to see agreement on that redefinition from the Congressional intelligence committees, but, AFAIK, it hasn't been brought to them.

CIA keeps reorganizing on the subject, so you had Angleton doing counterespionage under the name "CI Staff", with Osborne doing everything else in the Office of Security. Without making too much of a POV issue of it, I wanted to show the contrast side-by-side. In my reasonably professional opinion, the current Administration is trying to make everything OPSEC, and makes more and more use of assorted sensitive-but-unclassified labels outside the declassification system. While there is flux with the retirement of the director of the Information Security Oversight Office, there have been both unprecedented activities both in reclassifying declassified information, and also in putting things into categories covered neither by FOIA nor the declassification system.

I'm not trying to come at this from a partisan standpoint, but I am extremely concerned with the push to make more and more material restricted, including to the confusion of state and local law enforcement and emergency service organizations. Actually, I strenuously disagree OPSEC is "everyone's job", because the safe bureaucratic thing is to restrict everything. "Everyone" is not qualified to do objective risk assessment. As an example, going back quite a number of years, the Federal Telecommunications Standards Committee, in the late seventies, issued two standards covering the then-new Data Encryption Standard. FED-STD-1026 dealt with the algorithm, some aspects of key management, and communications protocols, had NIST as proponent, and was coordinated through the entire group. FED-STD-1027, which dealt with physical security of the cryptoequipment, was left exclusively to NSA.

Communications security is decidedly a specialist job, although the expertise is no longer limited to NSA alone. You may or may not have looked at the SIGINT#Defensive SIGINT material I wrote, but I discussed a range of issues with regard to COMSEC, not just cryptography, but compromising emanations, inadvertently induced radiations, side channels and covert channels. Of course, none of these is terribly useful if the crypto keys are left unprotected by physical means, or if cleartext is protected.

At the intersection of COMSEC and physical security is the proper threat assessment of SCIFs. As you presumably know, TEMPEST requirements have largely been eliminated for US facilities, as long as there is a reasonable physical exclusion zone. There's a bit of that in Radiofrequency MASINT.

Are we in agreement that counterespionage is a proper subset of counterintelligence, being principally a CIA responsibility when foreign and FBI domestically?

Apropos of personnel security, especially in the UK when MI5 was not compromised by Philby alone, but by Wright's and others suspicion that Soviet penetration into the executive suite meant that the positive vetting system could have been nullified. It was thankfully a bit more restrictive that the Golitsyn-Nosenko-Angleton affair was more restricted to CIA proper rather than a general clearance system, but, while the molehunt was underway, almost paralyzing Soviet Russia Division in the DO.

Not considering counterintelligence as a overall discipline, indeed including personnel, physical, communications, and other disciplines, all requiring specialized knowledge, means no one has responsibility for overall information and operational security. The new USIB definition, technical as it may be, could well be catastrophic for US security. Remember that Pearl Harbor was not a failure of collection or analysis, but of dissemination. If "OPSEC" restricts everything, what happens to the next warning? Howard C. Berkowitz 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As a slight add-on, you might want to look at something that is still in working draft, User_talk:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox1-OverarchingIntelligence, along with User_talk:Hcberkowitz/Analysis. There has been some discussion, triggered by the SIGINT and MASINT work, that there needs to be something tying together the intelligence cycle, and those activities, such as CI, budget, and policymaker acceptance, that aren't strictly in the cycle. Just as I finally split articles from SIGINT and MASINT, the same is needed in the overall article, which really isn't covered elsewhere. Some UK editors have commented there needs to be reconciliation between newer US military doctrine and NATO CCIRM, and that may be the place. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I didn't return to Wikipedia until just after lunch today, and have carefully read what you posted in response. You began your posting with something which I think I should probably quote directly - for ease of reading I'm going to put it in italics: "Yes, the US intelligence community page uses the limited definition of counterintelligence. You'll note, however, that this definition disagrees with JCS Pub 1-02 and other doctrinal guides, both US and non-US." I'm having some trouble seeing that; could you please refer me to some specific examples where JCS 1-02 or other doctrinal guides (either US or non-US) include OPSEC and other security practices under counterintelligence?

JCS 1-02 defines counterintelligence as "counterintelligence — Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or internationalterrorist activities. Also called CI. See also counterespionage; countersabotage; countersubversion; security; security intelligence. (JP 2-0)
I was about to ask if you would feel more comfortable if "CI" were changed to "security", but that term, again, has become so broad as to mean nothing. It's not uncommon, when walking down a public sidewalk, to have some large individual bar one's way, muttering "security". Such an individual is often merely a bodyguard or generic entourage member for an entertainment or sports figure. If they show me valid law enforcement credentials, I will listen to what they claim, but, if they can't demonstrate lawful authority, I may mutter back "prosperity" and continue on my way. If they touch me without lawful authority, I suppose we may have to find out who had the better sensei.

I also noted that you later referred to the USIB definition as "new," but I'm having trouble with that as well, as it follows what I've been doctrinally taught by DoD CI schooling in resident course instruction in 1987, 1990, 1996, and 2004; that OPSEC, COMSEC, INFOSEC, personnel security, physical security, etc., do not fall under CI, and are not within the direct scope of CI activities, units, or organizations.

I can only say that I've encountered attempts to manage terms since I had my first clearance in 1967 or so, so 1980s definitions indeed do feel a bit new.
Note that the DoD a broad definition, including countersabotage, which is hard to imagine without physical security being a major component. Part of my being conflicted is that the USIB OPSEC definition is so broad, so vague, that it essentially says nothing to me. At the same time, I'm seeing growth of a "conceal everything in the name of OPSEC" culture, which flies in the face of decades of work on more open national security processes. I wrote my first policy paper on information protection in the early seventies, under the auspices of the Ripon Society, which got me fairly good access to policymakers. Sensible openness means that there is intelligent review, but the things that truly need protection are held tightly. I'm afraid that the homeland security color codes and other activities substitute theater for rational policy.
What I'm hearing you describe is counterespionage, not counterintelligence, whatever the courseware may have called it. My greatest concern here is OPSEC, which once meant something specific but, to me, has been generalized to the point of meaninglessness. EO 12333 never defines it, so I don't know how to rationalize OPSEC as part, or not part, of CI.
Further, this article is not about "US OPSEC" or "US CI". Conversations with British and other colleagues are difficult in that they restrict more of their definitions, but there is a strong sense of disagreement with the US definition.

It is not that they aren't very important in their own right; it's just that they are not considered CI. Further, the USIB definition is clearly drawn from Executive Order 12333, which established back in 1981 that counterintelligence did not include personnel security, physical security, document (information) security, or COMSEC in paragraph 3.4(a). Can you please explain why you perceive this to be a "new" concept, or one that has not followed by all US Intelligence activities as directed by EO 12333 a quarter century ago?

I am willing to agree that EO 12333 does not start by defining these, but, under paragraph 3.4(g)(3), it leaves a wide scope for essentially anything being defined as a counterintelligence activity. In other words, 3.4(g)(3) trumps 3.4(a).

Perhaps your primary concern or argument as to why OPSEC and other security practices should fall under counterintelligence is more of a philosophical one, that when considering CI, in the broadest possible definition, it should be concerned with countering all aspects of intelligence collection by foreign nations, and thus, since something like OPSEC or physical security or the other fields help prevent that collection, it must be a part of CI. Although I can appreciate that in the broadest sense, I see plenty of practical problems in application. I mentioned earlier that OPSEC was "everybody's job," and you disagreed.

If you can give me an unambiguous definition of OPSEC, that doesn't easily fall into either the trap of either keeping information away from those with a national security need to know, or being able to conceal embarrassing but not privileged information, I will examine that. Failure to defend Pearl Harbor in 1941 came, in part, from so much security that the operators didn't have information they needed. OPERATION EAGLE CLAW, the attempt to rescue the Teheran embassy hostages, did follow "OPSEC" the point that the critical helicopter crews did not train in joint operations, and weather and area specialists with full clearances were not consulted. I've personally been deceived by Paul H. Lemmen, who was able to conceal a con game with references to "OPSEC".

I can respect that, but from a CI perspective, we can't possibly put that task or burden on our CI personnel and agencies, who already have their hands full with the high-level CI fight. OPSEC and the other SEC disciplines must be incorporated down to the lowest level, in everything that we do, for everyone, in order to be effective. From a common office office worker at their desk in a non-intelligence activity practicing proper INFOSEC by keeping SF704 coversheets in place or initialing the SF 702 everytime they open their GSA container, to a communications worker using proper procedures in handling COMSEC materials, to even a physical security officer making sure that room keys are issued and properly accounted for, every person plays a part in helping to defend against the intelligence collection methods employed by the other side.

It's not happening. We are so busy with the visible that we ignore the real threats. Let me go back to the early seventies work, and draw contrasts. I had extensive interviews with the then director of security at CIA, who told me his nightmare was the cleared staffer smuggling out documents every day. In contrast, at that time, the Marines were still guarding the corridors at Fort Meade, with a reputation of firing three times before crying "halt", and apparently there to protect not against the trusted individual violating trust, but to buy time, when the Soviet Guards Airborne Division landed on the roof, to buy time to trigger the destruction charges. At that time, which agency was having more information leaking? CIA or NSA? CIA's position, as expressed by Howard Osborne, was to be sure that people understood the reason for security roles and cooperated intelligently. NSA was the large club of "never say anything".

Please take a quick look the wiki article on INFOSEC and note the poster someone put up at top right: "Security is everyone’s responsibility," ergo, OPSEC is "everybody's job." I think you mentioned that "everyone is not qualified to do objective risk assessment," and I would agree with you there, but objective risk assessments can be left to CI experts

Again, my major objection is to the current usage of OPSEC, and I'm willing to negotiate almost everything else. Unfortunately, I know of no word or phrase, beside CI, that hasn't been corrupted. The CI people rarely are qualified to do COMSEC or INFOSEC.

while the functional realm of OPSEC and the other security disciplines remain a task for everybody. I think you also stated that you believe not considering counterintelligence as a overall discipline, to include the SEC disciplines, means no one has responsibility for overall information and operational security.


All I can say in response is that lumping the SEC disciplines in with CI still won't make one entity responsible for overall information and operational security - our CI agencies and personnel can't possibly do that job, it is up to every rank and file individual to employ the SEC disciplines and make them part and parcel of their jobs.

If no one is responsible at a high level, and again not necessarily a US level, I don't believe it will happen.

Returning directly to the issue on the Wikipedia entry on Counter-intelligence, I think the accepted consensus and doctrine in the US Intelligence Community

Again, this is meant not to be US-specific.

is that counterintelligence is specifically contemplated to refer to CI activities which detect and neutralize the intelligence operations of foreign intelligence services (when I started in the 80s, we called them HOIS, not FIS), both in "information gathered" and "activities conducted" to prevent espionage and sabotage, but is not interpreted to include OPSEC, COMSEC, INFOSEC, etc., which are separate and defensive security practices in their own right.

A key to what you just said is "foreign intelligence services". Today's threat is more subtle; the techniques that targeted the KGB aren't necessarily appropriate to much smaller, non-national actors.

The former is tasked specifically to CI agencies, and the latter is a broad responsibility of all government and contractor personnel everywhere. In that regard, the Wikipedia entry on counterintelligence should really reflect the accepted consensus of the intelligence community, as opposed to what you or I might think it ought to be. After considering the issue, and only in the limited sense of what should appear under that wiki entry, are we in agreement there?

No. I think you are limiting your definition to the US intelligence community, in a period where security is politicized badly.

You asked if I we mutually agree that counterespionage is a proper subset of counterintelligence, being principally a CIA responsibility when foreign and FBI domestically - absolutely. CE is the crown jewel of CI, but CI activities encompass more than just CE cases.

Here we agree.Howard C. Berkowitz 21:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

JCS 1-02 defines counterintelligence as "counterintelligence — Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or internationalterrorist activities. Also called CI. See also counterespionage; countersabotage; countersubversion; security; security intelligence. (JP 2-0)

Can I ask where inside that definition you specifically feel OPSEC and the other SEC disciplines were meant by DoD to be "included" when they defined counterintelligence in JCS 1-102? Is it "activities conducted to protect against... ...other intelligence activities?"
Unfortunately, the definitions are rather circular. Yes, that's the closest phrase.

Part of my being conflicted is that the USIB OPSEC definition is so broad, so vague, that it essentially says nothing to me. At the same time, I'm seeing growth of a "conceal everything in the name of OPSEC" culture, which flies in the face of decades of work on more open national security processes.

I can't really speak to that, but I will trust that you've observed plenty of things to lead you to that conclusion. However, if the USIB OPSEC definition is broad and vague, and you feel that OPSEC is becoming overused, wouldn't that be all the more reason why we shouldn't lump OPSEC in with CI? Advocate for more effective OPSEC process rather than try to make it a subset of something which is already distincly defined?
I suppose it depends what you mean by "advocate". Trying very hard to keep this out of the US political realm, while I might argue for a more efficient OPSEC process in Wikipedia, it is my sincere belief that Cheney (especially) and Bush do not want a efficient, clear definition. They want to have a vagueness under which "security" or "OPSEC" can be used, at will, to justify any action, any withholding of data. My hope is that Secretary of Defense Gates may have brought enough intellectual integrity to the job that this trend might reverse.
Perhaps EO 12333 never really defines it because it wasn't considered to be a part of CI? Note that in 1988, the same President who signed EO 12333 issued National Security Decision Directive 298 that established a national OPSEC policy and outlined the five-step OPSEC process.
I can't say. Speculating why the Reagan White House put different things in different documents would be pure guesswork, unless some primary source has explained it.
Agreed, that the article is not about "US OPSEC" or "US CI," but the concept of counterintelligence as currently practiced by nations. However, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that the British or other nations consider CI to include items like information security, personnel security, physical security, etc. Are you aware of nations or services which do?

I am willing to agree that EO 12333 does not start by defining these, but, under paragraph 3.4(g)(3), it leaves a wide scope for essentially anything being defined as a counterintelligence activity. In other words, 3.4(g)(3) trumps 3.4(a).

I took a long, careful look at this but was unable to come to the same conclusion. I think what you're trying to point out is that 3.4(g)(3) gives wide scope for other programs or agencies within the IC being designated by the President as national foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities. But that has never happened - the President has never designated security concepts, practices, and programs like physical security, personnel security, information security, etc., as CI activities. So, since 1981, 3.4(a) stands untrumped in its explicit definition that CI does not include personnel, physical, document, or communications security programs, and that is where we are today.
Again, I'm truly trying to keep this out of the US political arena. Nevertheless, that the President has never done so does not give me any confidence that he will not do so in the future. The...interesting...doctrine of "unitary authority" to do virtually anything under the authority of commander-in-chief, to me, flies in the face of Constitutional tradition and the separation of powers. At this point, I might agree that if the Congress passed a definition, and the President signed it with no "signing statements" saying he might not follow it if he so decided, then that could be a definition of OPSEC. What would be wise to put into such a definition is a separable matter.
I suspect I can't really give you a satisfying definition of OPSEC that you won't find potentially flawed (wink). However, despite how important the lessons of Pearl Harbor, Operation Eagle Claw, and other similar events are, they don't necessarily paint a clear picture as to why the SEC disciplines should be defined as CI activities today.

Again, my major objection is to the current usage of OPSEC, and I'm willing to negotiate almost everything else.

If I may make a heartfelt suggestion... why not work to improve the Wikipedia entry on Operations security instead, rather than trying to make it a part of the CI article?
I've spent enough time around medicine to know that at times, the patient isn't going to get better. This is an equivalent. I do not believe the current Administration will commit to any definition that might constrain it. In other words, I believe OPSEC to be semantically null in the present climate. I use, therefore, other disciplines such as INFOSEC, COMSEC, personnel and physical security, CI, and CE because they retain meaning.

Again, this is meant not to be US-specific.

Agreed, but can you refer us to any non-US intelligence services who consider OPSEC and the SEC disciplines to be an integral part of counterintelligence activities?

The problem is that I see the emphasis on "OPSEC" to be largely US usage. While this would be reaching back historically, classical (as in WWII) Operations Security is actually a subset of Strategic Deception. I believe this is consistent with the London Controlling Section (UK) and Joint Security Control (US).

We should explore then what we consider the definition to be in the non-US community... then see where we can split the difference. Perhaps if the non-US community includes the SEC disciplines in CI, then we can differentiate in the Counter-intelligence article the separate practices so that distinction is apparent (and the US position can be easily sourced, as unsourced material is easily challenged). How does that sound to you?
I cannot, in good conscience, use US definitions of OPSEC until they start to mean something again, rather than, for example, being open-ended invitations to make Homeland Security "sensitive but unclassified" warnings outside the scope of any declassification system, outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, and outside Congressional review.
I would be willing to speak in terms of strategic deceptions as a means of what I'd call "protecting operations" rather than OPSEC. The chaotic ways in which soldiers are being told, on alternate days, that they can or cannot have blogs, and they can or cannot put things in email, have caused me to lose all confidence in the US approach to OPSEC. OPSEC, in the classical sense, is about protecting specific operations and capabilities. It has morphed to mean "hide all details about US activities". Ironically, the Soviets didn't like OPSEC; it had to be in the USA Institute rather than the GRU or KGB. I really don't think that there is a large OSINT effort in a pentagon-shaped cave in Pakistan.
Each of the books I've written on network design start with "what problem are you trying to solve?" I can't discern a clear definition of the problem OPSEC is intended to solve. It would be Original Research for me to try to define it.
If you can define some generic term, other than OPSEC, that includes CI/CE, and, perhaps at a parallel level, the other security disciplines, I could, in good conscience, write to it. Suggestions? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me try a variant:

I read your reply last night just before turning in, and tried to think of some generic term that would meet this criteria, but couldn't. Perhaps there is a reason why it is so elusive - the concepts are often complicated, and the US Community has struggled with OSPEC for a long time. I don't envy the troubles you face trying to integrate this concepts and writing on them, and I'm sorry I can't be of much help. I am also no fan of the current administration's policy efforts in these areas, and am troubled by things like the WH-DOJ events transpiring just after 9/11 and other events which are still playing themselves out.

Trying to make headway on the issue of the SEC disciplines (Information Security, Personnel Security, Physical Security, Communications Security, etc.) being added into the Counter-intelligence article in a major re-write, I think we need to figure out exactly where we agree and disagree so that we can try to make some progress there, as I must admit it's actually been confusing to me in our conversations. I'll start with suggesting two statements that you can let me know where you stand with either "agreed" or "disagreed," with "disagreed" responses including (if I might ask for) a direct explanation to help me understand why you disagree. Does that sound reasonable? Feel free to put similar questions to me if you'd like.

Let me observe that when I go to do a security assessment in, for example, a hospital with VIP patients that would have paparazzi/gossip (i.e., spies, but without the honesty and character) eager to find out what is done to whom, I often analyze, write policies, and design every one of the SEC's, including regulatory compliance with contradictory regulations.
  • The non-US intelligence community (e.g., the rest of the world) may or may not consider the SEC disciplines to be a part of CI.
  • The US intelligence community does not consider the SEC disciplines to be part of CI.
This is touchy. I believe that a good deal of that is security theater, with mandates from a political level, especially now, which really wasn't coordinated through the intelligence community. I'm willing to say that the EO/USIB says that, with a loophole, and the DoD definition can be read either way.
I, too, am still searching for an overall term. Let me throw in something that is real, but hard to define. We have security monitors on radio nets, looking for inappropriate use. Calling BEADWINDOW (see Sigint#Monitoring Friendly Communications, to me, is about a clear an example of a legitimate OPSEC technique, which is assigned (typically) to a COMSEC unit because they have the receivers for it. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm rapidly wondering if, whether intending it or not, you are thinking of CI as primarily CE. Even so, that would touch on the definition of espionage.

"counterintelligence — Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or internationalterrorist activities". In the narrowest sense, how can one prevent against Boris and Natasha if one does not put the Seeekrit Plan in the safe (i.e., physical security)? Personnel security, we hope, finds the spies before they can do much damage.

It's hard for me to conceptualize "countering [foreign] intelligence" and then restrict myself to not covering the defenses against means of intelligence collection.

From the same source, "espionage — The act of obtaining, delivering, transmitting, communicating, or receiving information about the national defense with an intent, or reason to believe, that the information may be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

"receiving" logically considers the threats against which INFOSEC and COMSEC protect. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from any political theatrics, whether one calls the "master discipline" OPSEC or CI, does there not have to be someone with the ultimate security responsibility?

It seems to me that we would both agree that the SEC programs are important, we just disagree on whether or not those defenses against means of intelligence collection are doctrinally considered to be within the scope of counterintelligence as the U.S. government approaches it. Or perhaps you actually agree with that as well, you just disagree as to whether or not those defenses should be doctrinally considered to be within the scope of CI? --

They need to be in the scope of something, or there is a guarantee there will be gaps. I see there being two critical problems:

  1. If there is no overall discipline, there will be gaps to exploit
  2. OPSEC is so vague that it becomes something that has a chilling effect on proper citizen participation and Congressional oversight.

It's one thing to talk about a small direct action or strategic recon patrol, but, against a sophisticated force, you may manage a bit of tactical surprise. In 2003, the Iraqis could have been given a nicely calligraphed map of where and when the heavy forces would arrive, and it wouldn't have made too much difference. There was a surprising amount of deception and surprise with the initial attack in 1991, especially the waves of hard and soft kill SEAD interspersed with direct attacks at centers of gravity.

There isn't that much rational threat assessment, IMHO, to justify the suppression of speech, and much of things such as aviation searches. I can still think of some fairly nasty things TSA would not catch. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we are converging, and let me propose a "Gordian Knot" sort of solution. What if we create an article, under the intelligence cycle, with one of the following titles:

  1. Security (i.e., nothing about the kind of SEC in the title. All the "SECs" are subheadings or daughter articles)
  2. Protecting the intelligence cycle (tricky. Lets us refer to CI in a narrowly defined separate article. The problem, however, is it doesn't really address protecting broader national interests, the role of the action organizations -- military, law enforcement, emergency response. Should it?)
  3. Protecting the national interest (ugh. Says nothing really, but brings in everybody).

Before proceeding further, some questions. Who/what organization or discipline does threat assessment and prioritzation for all the SECs, in these very different environments?

  • NSA HQ has people with access to almost everything, so they must have robust personnel security. We'll assume the classic "never say anything" and brief everyone to report potential recruitment, etc. Since they talk to everyone, they need strong COMSEC. They may well overdo physical security; Ft. Meade always looks like it's ready to be hit by a brigade, where Langley looks like a hotel)
  • The TOC in Fallujah (e.g., they well might get hit by a force, in too close for heavy support. They need COMSEC on tactical things, but NSA isn't exactly going after their comms. Recruitment? Yeah, right.)
  • An electronics system assembly shop in Silicon Valley. Theft is a real concern. Recruitment of someone to smuggle things out is a serious concern, but this is assembly, not engineering, and their external comms are mostly administrative -- and they don't have people that really know theory of operation or employment of what they build.
  • Lockheed Skunk Works. You'd better believe there will be both infiltration and recruiting. Comms are sensitive. Perimeter security needs to be good, but intruders get spotted quickly.
  • US Naval Academy, just before the Army-Navy game.

If we can define a structure that indexes all the SECs, redirects CI to be HUMINT defense (with CE being active measures), and defines who is responsible for protecting the intelligence community (rather than the nation), I think we might be there. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If I have time today, I'll create an article, tentatively called "Intelligence security management". Alternate wordings much appreciated. That doesn't flow as nicely as I'd like, but it fits more with the other titles in the hierarchy:
  • Intelligence cycle (I left tasking in here since it's so much a management function, but perhaps I will split that out.
    • Intelligence collection management
      • SIGINT
        • 3 subordinate SIGINT articles, perhaps needing more splitting. Need to resolve COMINT, which points back to SIGINT, and ELINT & FISINT, which are fragmentary
      • MASINT
        • 6 subordinate articles -- maybe some tweaking, some getting a little large
      • HUMINT -- take a look. I cleaned up a bit yesterday, but it's pretty skimpy. All I did was try to talk about sources and add a few, not methods.
      • OSINT: I haven't touched it, ironically given that I do a lot of it
      • TECHINT: not touched
      • IMINT: mot touched
    • Intelligence analysis management
      • Intelligence analysis
    • Intelligence dissemination management (not up yet)
      • 'Intelligence dissemination and use( not up yet) By "use", I mean the addition of net assessment (or what the Soviets called "correlation of forces, which I think is a better term), and simulation & gaming based on intelligence data
    • Intelligence security management
      • Counterespionage, cut back to anti-HUMINT measures. My gut tells me that personnel security, especially clearance procedure, really belongs here rather than a separate article -- when you consider continuing monitoring, it's CI. CE will go in here as well.
      • COMSEC, which exists but I can edit; I'm better on emanations, traffic flow, and key management than crypto proper...when I read the math for the AES, I said "OK, that's a partial elliptical function. Let's both back away, our hands visible, and no one gets hurt." Maybe I will dig into the math someday
      • INFOSEC, again something I can do, although it's a time issue
      • Physical security exists but is more commercial. Should we work in a summary of the published SCIF construction requirements?
      • Personnel security -- there's some material on security clearances, but not quite on topic
      • OPSEC -- I get emotional about that. Maybe I can deal first with horrible examples like Pearl Harbor and EAGLE CLAW, and then work around them. The true value of OPSEC really should be how it frustrates intelligence analysis or subordinate articles.

Just as a personal note, no, I'm not retired, but consulting is a little slow at the moment. It turns out that the MASINT is quite relevant to the commercial remote sensing I'm doing for commercial fishing. My fisherman business partner bops me when I start talking about detecting an Oscar II two convergence zones out and prosecuting the contact, and reminding me that I need to be thinking about different fish, like tuna and scallops (MASINT like techniques involved with both) Howard C. Berkowitz 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You might find it interesting to look at the Army Counterintelligence FM 34-60 of 1995, at I can't remember if that's what I had in mind at the time I wrote about all the "SEC's" being under CI, but this version is rather explicit about defensive CI in both multithreat briefings, and in countermeasures against each of the major intelligence collection disciplines. You can look at my working draft of what is to be the CI article under User talk:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox0-SIGINT Platforms (didn't make it a wikilink, and ignore the title). It's probably fair to say that current CI doctrine has evolved to being principally counter-HUMINT, but FM 34-60, for example, clearly puts OPSEC, COMSEC monitoring, personnekl security, etc., under CI. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've tracked down the NSDD on OPSEC, and browsed until I found a DOE site that mentioned that OPSEC had been formalized as a result of a CINCPAC or JCS study in 1965, called PURPLE DRAGON, which was to figure out how the other side would know when ARC LIGHT and ROLLING THUNDER missions were coming in. Now I have Wikitrouble. From Vietnam days, I remember reading the Lessons Learned papers, which automatically declassified in 3 years, that explained, at least, how the VC knew about incoming B-52s, and I sort of remember ROLLING THUNDER opsec problems. As far as citing these, however, the online document about PURPLE DRAGON is not attributed, and says that NSA inherited OPSEC mostly because the people that did PURPLE DRAGON wound up at NSA.
From a Wikipedia standpoint, I don't know if there is any practical way to cite the references. I know they were in MACV "Lessons Learned" publications, around 1967, declassify after 3 years. Somewhere in the bowels of the Army, there are probably microfilms of those documents, but I only remember the approximate title -- yet I remember the exact OPSEC violations and they might not be bad examples.
After going through a few more documents, including the NSDD and the NDU paper you mentioned, there is some language that suggests:
  • OPSEC complements the other SEC's, but doesn't include them
  • CI is now defined mostly as counter-HUMINT
  • OPSEC, as written, makes reasonable sense for combat operations, but I'm walking a very thin line about the Wiki Sin of OR to try to interpret what the assorted authors actually meant. After 40 years of living in the DC area, why should I be surprised to find a number of policies being contradictory?
  • I thought OPSEC might cover all threats to intelligence, but it definitely doesn't, even to the point that the DCIA has some authority that neither DIRSA nor NCIX can override, apparently, on some sources and methods -- which read like "intelligence community" rather than CIA, and I don't know if this is an allusion to clandestine services, or someone cutting and pasting from when the DNI didn't exist and it's old language about the DCI, not DCIA.
  • At this point, I don't think there is an umbrella term for either the overarching security issues just for intelligence, or the possibly broader scope for the US generally. If the underlying "counterterrorism is part of everything" meme holds, I might get it under intelligence cycle security.
  • Even for an old OSINT person, I'm amazed how much I've found. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Never, in the course of human events, has a US Army doctrine been "blurry" :-)

You might find it interesting to look at the Army Counterintelligence FM 34-60 of 1995. I can't remember if that's what I had in mind at the time I wrote about all the "SEC's" being under CI, but this version is rather explicit about defensive CI in both multithreat briefings, and in countermeasures against each of the major intelligence collection disciplines.

Good reference on your part to find and point out, I'd meant to dig my paper copy out and give it a look but it isn't physically located where I'm at here and I didn't think to look for it online. By defining CI Operations as "special" and "general," and then explictly including support to force protection and security programs in the latter, it makes a good argument that SEC programs really are part of CI or are closely connected with it, insofar as the field manual puts these into practice for the Army. One thing you probably noticed is that it says that CI General Operations support the SEC programs, without actually saying that CI General Operations include the SEC programs or control them, but further down in the manual the line becomes a little more blurry. Two references I found last week that I wanted to share with you for good current sourcing material for US CI are here and here, please take a look when you get the chance. The second reference is the better of the two and includes an annotated defintion of CI on page 5.
Thanks for the second. I had referenced the first. You are quite correct that the 1995 manual starts out with some useful distinction between general and special operations, which fit my original thesis somewhat better. While I didn't go to this manual at first when drafting the article, I may well have read it before.
I think it's fair to say that over 12 years or so, there have been changes in the US definition of CI. It's been much harder to find references for NATO, other alliances, and other countries. There may be a discussion of the changed philosophy in an open journal like the Army War College's Parameters, but it also might be in something like CIA's Studies in Intelligence, with both unclassified and classified versions.
Right or wrong, there's been a trend to more classification in CI, and especially the HUMINT-related parts of CI. I note that the new CI HUMINT manual is classified, and other documents say that the definition of "counterintelligence force protection [human] source intelligence" is classified. In a demonstration of OSINT, it is in the 1995 CI FM, and also in two research papers, one from the Air Command and Staff College and one from the Naval Postgraduate School. It's arguable if that the US has more or less benefit from such classification, as the Air Force paper specifically addresses reorganization and funding of force protection. The author has some specific observations as how procedures at the time failed to protect Khobar Towers, although, of course, his changes might not have saved it either. That one hits close to home; a friend of mine, who is not a professor at one of the service institutes, someone who wears the Master Nerd Badge, also now wears the Airman's Medal for repeated trips into the wreckage to pull out injured personnel, while he himself was injured.
I make the observation about the policies being argued, because I think they could do more good for the US if presented to Congress for funding and authorization, than some al-Qaeda analyst reading how we define a classified phrase.

You can look at my working draft of what is to be the CI article under User talk:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox0-SIGINT Platforms (didn't make it a wikilink, and ignore the title). It's probably fair to say that current CI doctrine has evolved to being principally counter-HUMINT, but FM 34-60, for example, clearly puts OPSEC, COMSEC monitoring, personnel security, etc., under CI. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you have been busy! Impressive. I only gave it a quick read just now but I will return to look at it more in depth, and once again you've obviously put a lot of time and quality effort into this. It's going to greatly advance the quality of the main space article when you replace the current entries. If I have any suggestions, do you want me to make any proposed edits, right there on the sandbox page? I figure you can easily revert or undo something I edit if you feel it it doesn't help or if the original text was better, and I won't take issue with it. I didn't see anything right off the bat that I even thought should be changed, I just wanted to ask first. --AzureCitizen 15:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Since I keep tweaking it, and am, I suspect, where it's near the point of diminishing returns before just publishing it, either make changes in it but put them in italics, or, preferably, put it on the discussion page so I don't miss it. That can be either my general page here or the page in my sandbox (probably better here). Incidentally, originally to speed edit time, I took out the whole section on CI failures and agencies, which is sitting in User talk:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-CIfail. Since I've gotten better at wikilinking between articles, and the main CI article is getting huge, it may be better to put that case study material in a separate, but thoroughly cross-linked article. Indeed, one thing I was about to do was to take the list of 20 do's and don'ts for running a CI operation, taken from a CIA article, and crunch them down but also give them Wiki headings so I can give cross-links internally in the article and between articles.
As a pure matter of keeping articles of manageable size, what do you think of the "overarching SEC" article referencing the 1995 definitions, and then putting the CI draft into the position of "counter-HUMINT", just as COMSEC (and other things) are counter-SIGINT and SATRAN is counter-IMINT? What that might eventually look like, hierarchically, could be:
Intelligence cycle management
Intelligence cycle security (includes the 1995 CI manual definition of SECs, updated for new technology)
Counterintelligence (fills the counter-COMINT role)
Case study article, maybe combining list of services or eventually breaking out the list of services
---maybe Counter-SIGINT, which might be a lot of crossreferences. Here I start getting into trouble, because the 1995 CI manual definition of "SECs" doesn't track countermeasures to the other intelligence collection disciplines. I hate articles that are really a collection of stubs on some of the SECs (or that I could fill out later, like using the unclassified SCIF construction guide as an example of physical SEC). On the other paw, I had to stop and think what C-HUMINT and C-IMINT and C-SIGINT meant when I saw them in the 1995 manual, and their content may be better under the collection discipline. The CI draft certainly covers C-HUMINT, originally without the material about personnel security. Starting from the point of the Slammer Project (see table in the CI draft) on why people commit espionage, personnel security might fit neatly there. INFOSEC and OPSEC are hard to place.

Howard C. Berkowitz 17:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I published the "Intelligence Cycle Security" and "Counterintelligence" articles, thinking it was time to get wider comment. Last night, I think I figured out some of the conflicts on organization, which may relate to NSDD 298 being drafted before the DNI and NCIX were in position, and there are some jurisdictional conflicts.
The problem remains that there seems to be no term, except the "Intelligence Cycle Security" I invented, that covers all "SECs" relevant to intelligence, and, I think by reasonable extension, counterterrorism. Intelligence, rather than shooting, CT seems to be accepted as a subset of CI.
I am going to let the articles simmer and see if there are more comments, and then possibly contact the IOSS staff to see if they have guidance that clears up the conflicts. Who knows -- maybe this hasn't occurred to them. There are certainly a lot of policy differences between the Army FMs of the nineties and the current documents, especially with some things going into JP's rather than FM's. Classifying the CI JP doesn't exactly help my problem. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! I see we are both on, late in the evening... things relaxed a bit and I've been making sporadic edits over the last hour or so, including restoring the list of CI organizations, and sure enough, you caught that quick and improved it by adding several more.

There was one I have to relate, about US Army Criminal Investigation Command, that often confuses many people in its prior history and current scope. Although the initials are similar, Criminal Investigation Command (CID) and the Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) were actually separate organizations and were never connected; take a look at this and this for reference..

Got it. Hadn't really checked the details, as it struck me as just another example of crazed abbreviations. Actually, the US Army wasn't the worst. I can remember feeling like Job in that Jules Pfeiffer cartoon of "why me?" a couple of times. One, when I learned that the NKVD and the NVKD were different incarnations of the same Soviet organization. Two, when I was working at a Navy installation, and realized I was responding to COMNAVSECGRUACTPACDET without any fuss, and knowing what it meant.

I have read the CI article now from top to bottom, and am still amazed at what I high quality re-write you've instituted. One thing I did want to ask you about, I find that when I click on the references that are often at the end of paragraphs, the browser makes a click noise to indicate it received the command, but nothing actually happens. Might be something wrong with my copy of internet explorer, but I wanted to ask you if you'd noticed the same and if there was something going on there that isn't working right. Have you noticed this?

No, but I use Firefox. I find IE sufficiently buggy that I use it only for things where there is no alternative, such as using certain Microsoft system-checking tools.
As far as the rewrite, and I'm still juggling several articles and debating what goes where, it's actually better in this part of Wikipedia than in some of the computer networking areas where there is huge misinformation--of course, I once had to explain to a professor that the reason I believed his interpretation of a paper was wrong, and mine was right, because I wrote the original. Here, there seems to be a certain fascination with Rambo-type operations, but people that find the underlying connections of intelligence interesting seem fairly rare.
there really seem to be gaps in the current US conceptual model, with real areas of responsibility that SHOULD have a name, but don't. Whether these are things that fell through the cracks, such as no one updating NSDD 298 after the DNI was formed, is one possibility. While I thoroughly understand the need for protecting, I also find a tendency, in the current administration, to be constantly looking for ways to hide things that properly should get calm review. Where one document explicitly says OPSEC is about UNCLAS stuff, and another document says the threat assessments need to be classified, the left hand isn't talking to the right hand.
Some of the counter-INT things are now duplicated, which is inelegant. If you had said to me, a while ago, that counter-SIGINT was simple, I might not have agreed, except after I started thinking about counter-MASINT. Oh, I can think of countermeasures to a great many MASINT systems, but each approach is unique to a sub-technology. It's not a simple matter like finding a SIGINT receiver and doing hard or soft kill.
There's still work to be done on SIGINT, but, in looking at all of this work, I'm occasionally asking myself who, if anyone, will make use of it. After having published a few books, I'm not sure I want to take on another project, given Jeffrey Richelson does a fine job, and I'm getting near the edge of what, even though I'm working from open source, that I'm not sure should be discussed in public.
Anyway, thanks for the support. It's good to know someone is looking at it. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I think I've started on a joint cleanup of CI, HUMINT, and the existing espionage article by setting up an article "Clandestine HUMINT", which can pick up the relationships, and then make HUMINT/Espionage the practice of creating sources (with the caveat not all clandestine HUMINT is espionage), where CI is the counter-HUMINT concerned largely with counterespionage. I moved espionage by country into its own section, cutting it back, where possible, to organizations that actually do espionage. Some countries had all HUMINT-related organizations listed.

For some of the non-espionage parts of HUMINT, I've published the start of an article on "Special Reconnaissance Organizations" and am working on a substantive article on SR, which, for now, is in User talk:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox0-SIGINT Platforms.

It's my hope to start consolidating some really stubby articles on things like "double agent", which lack, in any case, the nuances such as redoubling, defector vs. in-place, etc. This will probably apply to assorted espionage tradecraft, such as couriers and cutouts. There's no article on cell organization, especially some theoretical variants that are coming out of computer science, cryptology, etc.

I would appreciate your taking a look at the discussion page on "Intelligence Analysis", and indeed the intelligence hierarchy as time permits. Someone started a discussion on wanting to cut back intelligence analysis because it's "too wordy". Now, there are some things that might go into their own articles, and it's always possible to tighten text, but I'm a little concerned that we had gone without any serious, integrated discussion of the intelligence cycle, and the first response is of someone that wants to cut on general principles. It may indeed be too wordy, and I'd trust a reality check from you and some other people that contributed during the writing.

I saw you restored the edits, but didn't see a note on the talk page. Wrong page, maybe? I misread that he had restored the deletions, and did put my own suggestions on the page. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the world needs another book on, to coin a phrase, the craft of intelligence, but if this is too wordy, maybe I should think that way, before the Men in Black come for me. You'll appreciate this -- I have a friend who is high in the Canadian parliamentary staff for military and foreign policy. At one point, I made one too many topical Canadian politial joke (I speak American as a native, fluent Canadian, reasonable English with Yorkshire when necessary, and adequate Australian. I very quickly drop to being able to order some dinner in Japanese, German, and Arabic). He threatened to send black helicopters for me, and I inquired if they would be Sea Kings, and, if so, in how many pieces and would FedEx deliver them? Howard C. Berkowitz 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as non-espionage HUMINT, I'm working on Special Recon, already having started an article that lists SR-capable organizations.

See my user page

I've just started on something that might pull together some tradecraft on the HUMINT side, starting with various ways of passing messages (couriers, dead drops, radio, steganography, even covert channels), protecting messages (encipherment, idea code), assorted people roles (courier, access agent, agent of influence, etc.). I might yet bring in some material from the Studies in Intelligence article by Ivan Serov on tradecraft. So, a Clandestine HUMINT tradecraft is another article.

I do have some material on financial secrecy, but I really don't know enough about clandestine funding to get to a complete article on my own.

Still debating, as apparently do others, if SAR/ISAR should move from Radar MASINT to IMINT, keeping things like counterartillery, missile tracking, etc. radar in MASINT. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind, mostly because I don't have a good comparison. HUMINT might be a better comparison than SIGINT, because HUMINT has, at least, subdisciplines (SR and clandestine HUMINT for now--never mind CI and the overlaps of clandestine HUMINT operations), where the subordinate SIGINT entries are not subdisciplines.

Do I make any sense? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on with the browsers. What I see in the top, indented paragraph are links for the subdisciplines -- nothing seems especially bolded.

There's another effect that I wonder might be related. Look at any of the MASINT disciplines, say "Geophysical MASINT". In each of the discipline articles, I put a list of the six disciplines. Something, whether it's Wikipedia or the browser, is smart enough to avoid a loop: even though I have all six typed in as wikilinks, the one to "Geophysical MASINT" in the Geophysical MASINT article does not show as a wikilink, but as plain text. In the "Radar MASINT", there is a wikilink to Geophysical MASINT, but not to Radar MASINT.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What should I look at?

It looks great on your talk page. I have no idea what will happen with things that aren't strictly hierarchical, such as clandestine HUMINT techniques under both CI and HUMINT. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The box looks better, but I am distracted by a large cat who just climbed into a trash can that won't hold his weight. Does that ever happen to James Bond? Octopussy just isn't the same as the very affectionate, very large Mr. Clark. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We may be making some WikiHistory here, as I don't know of a set of articles that are tied together the way we are doing it. On the one hand, it will make things more coherent, but that may be seen as bureaucratic. Mind you, we now have little groups of tradecraft scattered in odd places, often mixed with fiction, and not presenting a coherent picture.

I have a sense that this is backing into an Intelligence & Special Operations project, whether that's the intention or not. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

At MASINT,SIGINT, IMINT, HUMINT, OSINT, TECHINT having a box that goes up to intelligence collection management ? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The navigation boxes will still be there. I'm encouraged to have seen what I consider the first serious discussion of the model, under intelligence cycle management, over report grading errors without going back and verifying the sequence. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But it's not. I put up clandestine HUMINT operational techniques, as well as several updates to counterintelligence. Yesterday, I found that the Canadians, maybe not in the most elegant of language, more comprehensively covered defensive CI, intelligence preparation for offensive CI, euphemisms that seemed to refer to offensive CI, and then distinguished it all from criminal intelligence. Tonight, I updated CI with some information I picked up that complements the Project Slammer "motivation for espionage" with motivation for terror.

In the HUMINT techniques, there's quite an extensive discussion, with my drawings, about clandestine cells led by case officers under diplomatic cover, led by NOC but still a national force, and then the somewhat different cell structure that may be al-Qaeda's model. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have very mixed feelings about the utility of lists of organizations, at least the way they get created in broadly military areas in Wikipedia. With those feelings, however, is a strong suspicion that there is a demand for them, even if some of the lists don't make sense. On the one paw (I'm getting cat assistance with insomnia), there's a fascination with names of organizations, especially see-krit ones that remind someone of James Bond. Personally, I'd rather be reminded of Catwoman, although please do not remind the very affectionate Rhonda next to me. Eight pounds of Cattitude is great -- my sensei would love the way she can intimidate a dog ten times her size -- but I'd sort of like the two-legged variety.

The realities of service/operational politics, national level politics and "security theater", and true changes in doctrine will make any list need lots of maintenance. A list title may simply not match reality in a country with a fairly rational national security establishment, much less one that deliberately plays organizations against one another. Take the Third Reich: what was the counterintelligence organization in 1940? 1944, especially after July 20? SD der SS? Abwehr? Gestapo? Geiheime Feldpolizei? If you went back a few years, you'd find the Inland SD having much more power, until Ohlendorf fell out of favor. The Kripo might have gotten there when Nebe was still in the ascendant--two tragedies as men with some core of decency decided to "redeem" themselves by commanding Einsatzgruppen. Where did Fremden Heeres West and Fremden Herres Ost fit in positive intelligence, versus SD, versus Abwehr? Could one say the same things before and after Heydrich was dead?

Much the same kind of deliberate setting of bureaucracy against bureaucracy went on with the Soviets, and, for that matter, to the Czarist Okhrana, with the "civilian" security side constantly morphing from Cheka to OGPU to NKGB to NVKD to NKVD to MGB to KGB, with trying to fold national-level military organization into the political apparatus, with Party as well as State Security Organs and military, with ad hoc units like the Osoby Otdel and Smersh.

In a more rational political environment, there was the dissolution of OSS after WWII, the interim organizations before CIA, and then the evolution of the Army role for what originally was a UW mission that initially existed by being called Psyop under McClure. Early Special Forces had a fairly good handle on Eurasian UW, until the early sixties, as the UW mission began to extend to FID. SR, in Vietnam, arguably wandered among the mainstream SF, LRRPs, and SOG. DA was pretty ad hoc -- was Son Tay a DA or CT mission, or was hostage rescue consciously a mission at that point? Flash forward to the Iranian hostage crisis and the lost courage of the CF of EAGLE CLAW, with the subsequent infighting between SFOD and BLUE LIGHT. CIA paramilitary staff got in there somewhere, and is probably still somewhere in SR/DA/UW, depending on deniability, as is SF, but in the JSOC and SOC framework, with whatever isn't called ISA today. GOTHIC SERPENT and the fixes afterward. At the command level, National Counterterrorism Center? Something in DHS? FBI HRT? What about DA for a counterproliferation mission? Even cleared for everything, it is a constantly boiling stew, and I'm open literature only these days. Did sending the Defense HUMINT Service into the NCS mean all clandestine military SR went away? Yeah, right.

So CT versus CI organization lists, to say nothing of people that want to have lists of fictional organizations in there as well? At one point, the Brits seemed to be halfway stable, with SAS and SBS and SIS, but now assorted Northern Ireland units are SRR, with SFSG or whatever the other what-- combat support part of special forces? is called?

You see my confusion about lists. With the last article on clandestine HUMINT techniques, which, while totally written from open sources gets me a little uncomfortable, the offensive CI, counterterror, etc., missions get blurry again. Also, even in the open literature, there's some very creative thinking, as with AQ, about cell systems based on modern networking and fault tolerance theory, and things that make the highest-tech network centric warfare and swarm models not be totally incompatible with what,once mentioned, indicate some very subtle operational thinking is going on in AQ.

Hierarchies in Wiki? I don't know anymore, at least in the human source areas. I can call on my background in theoretical computer science to describe how a similar concept gets used in terror, counterterror, counterintelligence, and SOF, but I'm not sure if discussions of multiple class inheritance and self-repairing networks are exactly illuminating. A few weeks ago, I thought SIGINT and defensive SIGINT were voluminous but not too hard, and then I wandered into MASINT. Even as I struggle with whether SAR/ISAR really is IMINT (both radar and acoustic), I start thinking about counter-MASINT, and smoke comes out of my years.

There's a cartoon I've loved for many years: two multi-starred generals are holding model rockets, and one is asking "Have I got this straight? This is the one that we send up to get the one that they sent up to get the one that we sent up to get...", but a multilayered tactical BMD system that includes a decoy and MARV threat is just that.

Sorry if this is a braindump, or just stream of consciousness, but the sort of thing that happens from snapping bolt upright at 2AM. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was LTG Abrahamson, then heading the Missile Defense Agency, who gave one of the all-time responses at a press conference, and it applies, somehow, to the complexity of that with which we are dealing. A challenging reporter demanded to know why an interceptor had missed, why the target vehicle apparently had reentered differently than planned, and the radar was confused.
"Sir", he said, politely and almost in a drawl, "this is rocket science."
I have no simple answer to what is, indeed, a problem that is not simple. A little while ago, I was making some edits to counter-terrorism, and realized one reference related to terrorist tactics (assassination and reprisals). While I tried to put the reference in a better place, with some text around it, I realized that the real problem was that it didn't really deal with counter-terrorism, but with the operational planning of terrorism itself. What kind of counter-terrorism applies when your President has just been blown up, without warning, by a suicide bomber, who succesfully exfiltrated, albeit in small pieces?
At one point, we were only trying to deal with the "INTs" and "SECs". Bringing in the more operations (in the G-3 sense) oriented aspects of terror and counterterror complicates the matter significantly. Of course, what is "terror" to one side is "direct action" to the other.
While I doubt it's feasible on Wikipedia, this is the sort of thing where I'd try to get an off-site meeting of specialists and try to hammer out a model. The lack of a unifying conceptual model for all of these things is one of our problems -- a problem with which the professionals struggle, so how the newcomer sorts out the infinity of mirrors is a true challenge. Even if one tried to write an orientation for the newcomer, I honestly don't know how that fits into wikipedia culture, and whether it might be considered non-encyclopedic and/or condescending. The more I write, the more I realize that I am using an extensive context from military art, intelligence, social sciences, etc.
Unfortunately, my library is in boxes in storage. There is a very good paperback describing the at-first-successful Israeli assassination teams in response to Munich, and one of the best explanations of how an operation needs 8-12 specialized functions to come together, from early target surveillance to post-hit distraction and exfiltration. I'm thinking of looking at the "Terrorism" article to see if things can be tweaked there, but, again, these blur with SOF operational techniques.
I doubt this has been helpful, but maybe this distraction will get my customer to respond to the last two emails. :-( As Bill Marriott used to say, "I've been rich and I've been poor. Being rich is better." Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

US Army Fifth Corps[edit]

Is the above redirect correct? The subject is unfamiliar to me. --Brewcrewer (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

M4/M16 edit in U.S. Army article[edit]

AzureCitizen, thanks for your note. I did follow the footnote at the end of your edit—it pointed to the same fact files site that I used to respond to User:Blain Toddi as evidence that the M16A2/A4 was still in service. After reading the M4 entry a little more closely, I think the confusion lies in the wording of this sentence:

The "...and M16 series rifles." part is kinda dangling out there on its own without a specific modifier ("all," "selected") for clarification like the M3 and M9 have. However, my interpretation of this is: "ALL M3 submachine guns, SOME M9 pistols, and SOME (maybe most?) M16 series rifles." I base this conclusion on the following:

  • The flow of the text in the M4 entry leads me to believe that the word "selected" was intended to apply to both the M9 and M16.
  • The M16 entry [1] in the US Army Fact Files doesn't mention anything about its imminent (total) replacement by the M4.
  • A cursory Google search turned up nothing that specifically mentioned the Army's intent to replace ALL M16s with M4s.
  • You mentioned your personal experience in the USAR—you still have all M16A2s, and a "check's in the mail" promise that you'll get M4s ... someday.
  • My own personal experience with M16→M4 replacement: yes, most combat units are turning in their M16s and replacing them with M4s. But most support units and institutional units (e.g., Basic Training) still have M16s (A2s, not even A4s yet).
  • The sheer volume of M16-series weapons in the Army inventory makes in unlikely that they ALL will be replaced with M4s anytime soon—and by that I mean before the M16 AND M4 are both replaced with something different.

So that's my take. Thanks again for the note, hopefully we can get this ironed out without too much of a headache. Mike f (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to thank you for all your edits and searches regarding the M4/M16 issue where you try to improve the article as much as possible ..thanks again--Blain Toddi (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Contact and South Park[edit]

Thank you for your great edits! --Loremaster (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise, although my edits seem ordinary to me. BTW, I noticed just now you changed Garrison's words from "Movie" to "Film" - but in the actual episode, the word he uses is "movie." At marker 7:50 he says "that movie was terrible!" and at 7:59 he says "waited through that entire movie to see the alien and it was her god damn father." Is there a different reference you were using? --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

James O'Keefe[edit]

I recognize I could have phrased that sentence in "2010 New Orleans Arrest" a bit better, but to remove citations which actually do show a lack of means and intent to wiretap the phone system doesn't do the article any service IMHO. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


... for reverting the nastiness on my User page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello Xeno, I didn't realize you'd been reading along so closely! --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You sound surprised. Don't be; our paths have crossed on quite a few articles on my watchlist, and not without my taking notice. I don't frequently address you in discussions because, to be frank, there is rarely anything additional I can add or disagree with about what you've posted. However, don't confuse my silence with not paying attention; I'm definitely more engaged than I appear. I've seen and quietly noted your interjections of logic and civility into talk page discussions (and even ANI discussions) in which I've been involved. I've followed every word of your discussions with LAEC, although I must admit my eyes did start to glaze over when the nitty-gritty details of linkvios and copyright exceptions were being discussed. Admirable display of civility on both your parts, by the way; at one point it took great restraint on my part to keep from interjecting a snarky comment like, "You two need to get a room!"

I tend to swim in the deep end with the sharks, as you've probably noticed. As such, most of my discussion efforts are spent on debunking, correcting and providing context - and this automatically sets me up in the role of "adversary" from the start, at least in the eyes of some of those with whom I am conversing. Certain editors think editing Wikipedia is a competition rather than a collaboration, as evidenced by their use of phrases like, "I notice that he quickly retreated..." and "any objections have finally withered". It is refreshing to have a disagreement with someone that is looking to improve the article, rather than win a POV debate -- thanks for that, regardless of how our disagreement resolves. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you're reading everything too and little escapes notice! Sometimes I do the same, while at other times I am too busy with life's events and editing Wikipedia is a huge distraction (almost akin to an addiction really). I have noticed you stay focused in the debunking/context area and like to keep things business-like in patrolling the deep end. Personally, I find that I rarely enjoy the typical contentious editing and bickering often seen in the political articles.... I usually try to push things towards civil and collaborative discourse if possible, keeping some compromise in mind because it's hard to be open minded if you keep yourself positioned at the extremes. People who fixate on winning POV debates instead of improving the article become obsessed with a competitive win-lose mentality. Tellingly, when the balance of an argument starts to turn against them, they begin to comment less on the opposing edits and more on the opposing editor. As you remarked with TE, the best response is usually not to bite. After seeing your edits on numerous articles, I really respect your work. In any event, thanks for stopping by to say hello and I sincerely look forward to collaborating with you more in the future... --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I came to this page to gave AzureCitizen a Smiley Face for his edit saying, "It is therefore clear that LAEC (whom I respect) was ...." Now I see Xenophrenic has said, "I've followed every word of your discussions with LAEC.... Admirable display of civility on both your parts, by the way...." So I would give him a Smiley Face too. You know why? I am under severe stress right now. I have made WP:RS edits over the months, almost all of which were never reverted, until an en masse revert by a single person, complete with vicious history comments, because people are opposed to removing MMfA refs from hundreds of articles where they are improperly used due to WP:RS. In all this time only one person once discussed substantive RS issues, but an AN/I was started against me, including people voting on an indef block. One guy even said it is not worth reading what I wrote because it was long and I wouldn't change my mind anyway. Both you guys know that is not true. It is obviously easier to ban me than to discuss as required by WP:RS.
Am I allowed to ask you guys to take a look? If your eyes "glazed over" on the ACORN page, get ready for this effort to block me. You'll get a completely different picture of me, depending on whether the person supports my ban or not. Will you still respect me in the morning? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Added two cents at ANI, hope it helps. Hadn't expected you'd see the comment about respect on the ACORN video thread, but I certainly meant it. --AzureCitizen (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
@LAEC: My initial inclination is to post an oppose to the proposed indefinite block; not because I condone whatever actions landed you on that page, but because a block at this stage would be counter-productive. However, my "vote" appears unnecessary at this time, as a solid majority of the responding editors have already opposed the block. Also, my chiming in on your behalf at ANI might come with its own downside -- a bit like having Jesse James speak as a character witness for you. Wouldn't want the drama-posse that follows me around this place to turn on you out of spite. (Insert that Smiley Face here.) But I'll keep an eye on the voting. As for the stress you are undergoing; I feel for you. I've been a party to an arbitration long ago as a newbie, and it was no picnic, and the trial you are undergoing at ANI doesn't look much easier. One bit of advice I can offer: In every response you post at ANI, address only the problems and solutions, and not the other editors. Even if you are 100% in the right. Especially if you are right; don't even mention their names.
@AzureCitizen: You are being trolled. A "new editor" joined the ACORN video discussion; and added nothing to the discussion except a drive-by "Me too", under the misconception that consensus is achieved by voting instead of problem solving. Of course it is a sock of another editor, but there isn't much that can be done about it yet. I'd just ignore the editor for now; you aren't going to get them to cough up an IP or other account names, and their editing appears designed only to agitate. Don't fall for it.
Back shortly, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Roger on not wanting to fall for agitation - I just figured it would be important to box in the sock quickly so it doesn't have much room to maneuver. But I can see the point you're trying to make, which is that drive-by me-too editors who try to toss in their "vote" as they speed by are easily dismissed anyway. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I really feel a lot better after all of you helped either here or there. Azure in particular wrote an excellent comment. Thank you so much. I even linked it here. And Xeno, if you want help on anything, let me know. And thanks for the advice, I'll follow it best as possible, starting now. P&W-wow! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion[edit]

Howdy, AC. I see I am not alone in wondering about another editor's curious assertion that "the NPOV noticeboard has spoken." You questioned what he meant by that statement back in August, but your question went unanswered. A week later, after that editor made the identical assertion, you again asked him for an explanation, and again he ignored you. I've checked that NPOV noticeboard myself, and I have verified that there have been zero substantive responses on this matter to date. Is it possible that he is referring to some other noticeboard, or is this a case of intentional hearing loss?

Hi Xeno. I think it's a disingenuous attempt to claim the NPOV board has validated his cause and repudiated yours, hence my requests for him to clarify his comment that the NPOV board has spoken. I'm sure you noticed I posted a comment at the bottom of that NPOV board thread to show that the discussion didn't end there and as a POV content dispute it's still in progress on the TPM Talk Page. I assume he ignores the question because he can't field a credible or satisfactory answer as to why he asserts "the NPOV board has spoken."

As for the polling content in that article, I have personal reservations about incorporating any such information in articles, simply because I know how easy it is to make polling data say what you want it to say. However, the recent efforts by some editors to include what they perceive as favorable polls while they try to exclude unfavorable polls has been problematic. All polls, by their very nature, are imperfect and limited; any poll can be discredited, if one is so motivated to do so, by highlighting those limitations. I'm fairly certain this is exactly what is occurring at the TPM article. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's certainly the nature of polling. I too see the efforts to delete the U of W polls as excluding unfavorable material, making appeals to "I know statistics, you don't..." and "This is an anti-TP ad hominem smear tactic," etc. Yet the sentences are reliably sourced, neutrally phrased (including source, sample size, location, etc) and report data that was widely disseminated and discussed in news cycles.
FYI, looks like an anonymous IP who accused you earlier of being a "Coffee Party Organizer" on the TPM article is busy at work today removing material from the Coffee Party article. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous like a dirty sock. ;-) That's my old buddy, known as TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs), among other IDs. His edits did bring to my attention an interesting point, however, about the use of wiki-articles to promote stuff. He removed a sentence about an upcoming scheduled conference from the lede section of the article, as well as a similar sentence from the body of the article. I didn't revert his edit to the lede, as it appears to be a reasonable edit per WP:LEDE. I'm less sure about the neutral mention of it in the body, however, and whether or not it violates WP:PROMOTION. Do you know of a more applicable policy that addresses this? As for me being an "Organizer", perhaps he arrived at that incorrect conclusion after hearing me harp on about remaining civil and sticking to the facts, much like the Coffee Party group appears to do. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
A brief glance at the user's talk page shows plenty of concern by others for disruptive edits, personal attacks, and blanking comments. Nice guy I'm sure! Saw your partial re-insertion / re-wording and it looks fine; I don't think it violates the spirit of WP:Promotion because it's reporting factual events NPOV style with no fluff, puffery, fanfare, etc. Each is just a single sentence, and one is reporting an event that already happened. I'm not aware of any other policies that would apply, and I think WP:Promotion is being stretched as the statements are not tantamount to "Facebook" promotion pages despite the edit commentaries. With regard to "complexity", adding the fact tag was the right thing to do. Might take some research and leg work to come up with a suitable lead, reliably sourced... --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of the eye[edit]

Thanks! that link was great, much better than the wikipedia page at explaining what I was looking for. --Javsav (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspected that was what you were looking for... something that explains the how, complete with video.  :) --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Independent research[edit]

AzureCitizen, wanted to question the re-addition of independent research for CBS. No one is suggesting CBS participated in the research process, sampling, calculations, etc. However, usually when someone commissions research, it's equivalent to employment. They contracted it since they didn't have the expertise. When someone commissions research, it's not independent. Independent research is removed from the interested party, not paid by the interested party. I understand the source says "independent" but that's CBS themselves saying it (it's a claim). We don't have to use their own words. That's a pov that need not be introduced. It doesn't improve the article, presents a pov, and adds additional words in an area we're trying to trim. Morphh (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Morphh! I don't think I can agree with the position that when someone commissions research, it's not independent. Yes, CBS paid for it, but Air Photos Live is in the business of routinely selling such contracted services and we've seen nothing to indicate that CBS participated in the research process or the methodologies. I think the word "independent" in this context is not pushing POV, but instead helps the reader understand that CBS was not involved in the crowd counting process, and it has still been made clear that CBS hired them so it's not like we've left that fact out. Have we seen anything to indicate that CBS was an "interested party" in receiving a particular (under represented) crowd estimate count?
I also saw on the Talk Page your comment with regard to everyone else seeming to only get one line, but for them there isn't more than one line to say. Almost none of the other news sources and commentators supplied any further information about their guesstimates, hence there is little to add to explain how they arrived at that figure. CBS, on the other hand, embraced a scientific approach and supplied very detailed information. This particular article makes that very clear to me. As editors, we don't decide who is right and who is wrong... but since the crowd count is considered controversial, why would it be undue weight to supply the reader with information on the science and details behind the individual crowd count estimates? --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The weight given to a particular organization is not based on how scientific it is or the details that we might be able to provide. We are to summarize points of view to fit within the weight appropriate based on their prominence in reliable sources. I'm fine with giving the reader information and details, but there is a limit to what is proper in Wikipedia. The amount of content you give a POV is part of our core NPOV policy. CBS is given more space than what is justified based on prominence in reliable sources. CBS takes up about 25% of that section, while other media organizations get about 3-4%. This greatly shifts the balance, suggesting CBS is 8x more prominent than any other media organization in reliable sources. We know this is not the case and it violates our NPOV policy. I think there is been a certain amount of agreement that we could stretch CBS to about 20% of that section (still more than what is present in RS, but a compromise). Make the CBS paragraph equal in size to the other 4 paragraphs. However you want to do that with regard to what details you feel need to be left in or out, just summarize something and knock off a sentence. Morphh (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that space for weight is equivalent to viewpoint. NPOV "It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views". Essentially by having a large CBS section, we're saying that it is the majority view. How scientific it is doesn't matter, unless it's more predominate in sources as most scientific things usually are. By giving CBS the weight we have, we've said that all the other views are minority views and CBS is the majority view, but the truth is that there is no majority view. That's what the weight should show and weight is equivalent to content size. Morphh (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a problem with this analysis. We're not talking about minority and majority views that are competing for space in terms of what their inherent viewpoints are, the breath and depth of their argument, etc. Instead, there just isn't anything else to say about the other crowd size estimates because they never supplied their research background, methodology, science, etc. It is not as though we've allocated 25% of the space to CBS and made all the other news organizations fight for a sliver of the remaining 75%... instead, there is relevant information available for the CBS estimate and little to none for the others. Analyzing it in terms of simple word count in this regard doesn't make sense to me, and the details regarding how the scientific estimate was conducted are of value to any reader interested in the controversy.--AzureCitizen (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't altogether disagree with you there, which is why I'm fine with CBS getting a paragraph. I'm just trying to prevent it from being excessive. Weight does factor the depth of detail and quantity of text. Question is how much depth of detail and quantity is needed to provide the value to the reader. It seems we need to weigh the balance with the amount of detail. I've trimmed some redundant information from the section, so hopefully all will find that acceptable. I still think it could be more succinct, but this is certainly getting into more effort than it's worth. Morphh (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, guys. While you both raise interesting points, I'd like to express a small disagreement -- rather, a clarification -- to AC's assertion: The problem isn't that the CBS content is too weighty, the problem is there is nothing else to write about all the non-scientific estimates. I'm not sure that is an entirely accurate assessment. There actually has been some reporting on those guesstimates, but it has been purged from the article. For example, there are sources that say NBS's oft-repeated 300K estimate was completely based on a "tweet" about an unnamed source; sources that say Scarborough's "estimate" of 500K was actually just repetition of the event organizer's estimate given to him; many sources that explain how several of the major media outlets chose to be intentionally vague about making estimates, and often just repeated each other with no indication of actual source; etc. Hey, here's an idea: instead of struggling to trim the CBS content, how about we stop deflating the content around the guesstimates to the point of "underdue-weight"? Methinks that proposal wouldn't go over too well with some editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
True enough, but each of those comments (pov opinions) has to be weighed as well. Most of them are not covered in reliable secondary sources and considered a "tiny minority" viewpoint and thus should not be included. Morphh (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Quite to the contrary, Morphh, I was referring to sources already cited in the article. To elaborate on an example I offered above, this source, which states:
Without official estimates, any numbers published by reputable news organizations — like the 300,000 estimate — quickly got picked up and repeated enough to almost become fact. Domenico Montanaro, an NBC News off-air political reporter, tweeted Saturday that a Parks Service official said there were probably 300,000 to 325,000 in attendance (even though the Parks Service wasn't officially counting). The New York Times cited NBC News' estimate of 300,000, and the Drudge Report amplified the tally even more.
On Monday, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough repeated 500,000 several times during "Morning Joe." (That's the number organizers of the event gave to The Upshot on Saturday.) Beck said Monday that he didn't think there were a million people there as some have claimed.
Somehow, that content which clearly conveys the non-factual nature of these repeated estimates, has inexplicably (and almost comically) become the cited source for these assertions of fact in our article:
Joe Scarborough of MSNBC said 500,000 on his Morning Joe show.
NBC News estimated 300,000.
NBC News off-air reporter Domenico Montanaro tweeted that an unnamed official at the top of the Lincoln Memorial said 300,000–325,000 were present.
The irony is almost painful. By the way, I'll cut you some slack since you and I haven't interacted much, but be aware that I am quite informed about the difference between "pov opinions" and reliably sourced statements of fact. If I begin to speak to you of opinions, "tiny minority views" or non-reliable sources, I will clearly state so -- that should save you the trouble of conclusion jumping. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't doubt we have sources like that with commentary attached, but commentary has a weight as well. You don't give commentary about the crowd sizes as much weight as the crowd sizes themselves unless the commentary is as widely published as the crowd size. As far we know, that's just the opinion of the reporter (I'm out the door now so I don't have time to look at it). Should we give the opinion of the Yahoo reporter more weight than commentary from any other reporter from any other reliable publication? We don't pick and choose like that. The crowd estimates themselves are available in many secondary sources and thus are given weight. The one off opinions here and there are not. If we can show otherwise, then I'm open to inclusion. Morphh (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I am not or User:Recovering Obamunist and have zero connection to them/him. I'm just as confused as you are. My IP was blocked so I couldn't make a sock even if I wanted to. BS24 (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I can appreciate that you stopped by to say this in cordial fashion. Whatever's intentions, I hope you know that I wasn't trying to induce you into getting into trouble with 3RR. I prefer cooperation and amicable dispute resolution, so I will give serious positive thought over the next day or so to joining the mediation process on the article... tonight and tomorrow I'm going to be very busy so I don't know how much time I'll be able to devote to Wiki, and breaks here and there are definitely a good thing. Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. I tried to neutralized my issues summary in the interest of civility and compromise. We both would like to end this edit warring once and for all, so I look forward to working with you if you agree to the mediation. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me on this. I have tried to incorporate your good suggestions into the issue description at the case and hopefully it is more fair. I strongly encourage you to post your take in the Additional issues section, where other editors in the dispute can post their view of the issues. I have encouraged Mr. Anonymous to do so as well. I completely agree that we should keep the mediation focused on content, not other editors. I really appreciate your reaching out to me since we have both cooled off, and look forward to working with you further. BS24 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally[edit]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Restoring Honor rally was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

After mediation? Back to the same, I'm afraid. We need to dialog and have BS24, the worst offender, learn to maintain civility, while other editors should learn not to prevaricate and not obfuscate. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Mediation is a good place to develop those "understandings." Also, consensus might even develop, whatever that consensus might be, which would then guide the future editing environment of the crowd section controversy. Most feuds continue only because the participants involved don't come to an understanding. Please think it over and consider it... :) --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The request for mediation concerning Restoring Honor rally, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Notes over a cup 'o joe[edit]

Saw your notes on the Coffee Party page, and all I can say is "don't waste your time". You are responding to reincarnated "TruthfulPerson"; see this page. It looks like he's trying to recruit BS24, as well -- I hope he doesn't fall for the bait. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought perhaps he was this user here, since the new account was created a few hours after the former was blocked for an inappropriate username and now both of them have posted on BS24's talk page. Any thoughts? Also, I share your sentiment on hoping he doesn't fall for the bait.--AzureCitizen (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you mean The Incredible Edible Gregg (talk · contribs) ? (Note the identical edit summaries for both accounts.) I'm 100% certain TruthfulPerson = NeutralityPersonified; he's not even making an effort to hide that connection. But that doesn't mean he hasn't also used proxies and created other accounts with which to pester, like the two you suspect. At first, I was suspecting my old sock buddie MookieG (talk · contribs), because of the similarly weird edit summaries (see this diff) -- but that could very well be coincidence. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you are now being courted with full essays on the CP page now, all based on the incorrect assertion that the cited news article by Eblen is an opinion piece (wrong; it's a news article in the news section) written by an opinion columnist (wrong; he's a news columnist, as it says at the top of that article). Good luck riding that spinning merry-go-round. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Ooops, didn't see this before I posted a reply. Okay, we'll see where it goes next, LOL. Oh, by the way, I had a good chuckle reading your edit summary here.--AzureCitizen (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, slow your roll there. MookieG (talk · contribs) was me, a legitimate account (IMO) never used for nefarious purposes and properly retired. Anyways, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. notice this editor coming out of nowhere to help you from violating 3RR on Susan Roesgen, and more recently at Katie Couric. TETalk 21:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, TE. Note that I said "at first" I suspected, but I no longer do: unless you have a phenominal ability to split your personality. As for your suspicions about me, I am still without sin -- but you are encouraged to take your personal attacks to the SPI page if you wish to persist. You should know me well enough by now to confirm that I obviously need no help avoiding 3RR; I am extremely patient, and I will still be here the next day, and the day after that. Getting in just one more revert is not only unnecessary, but makes no sense to me. I looked at the links you provided anyway ... did you stop to notice my disagreement was with Off2riorob, while your 'sinner' was in agreement with him? Great detective work there, Bogart. Hope things are well with you, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
(Grin) I must comment that it is good to see you two have become friendly and loyal opposition as opposed to how things were a number of months back! We may all disagree in our opinions, but no need to be disagreeable as editors.  :) Respect is mutual... --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Ever get Déjà vu? I could pull diffs of you relaying that exact message to Ceemow and I. AzureCitizen = Peace Broker :-) TETalk 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
(Grin) I'll never forget those conversations either! --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I have no wish to report whom I consider to be a responsible editor for any reason. I have a good memory, as do you, and noticed a questionable editor I had suspicions about way back when reappear in very similar circumstances. That revert you speak of started between you and I, which was part of our nauseating talk page discussion. That's easy to see in the edit histories. I'm not looking for a fight, but you should expect me to respond to accusations, even if made while conceding your suspicions might coincidental. Here's to us working towards a better rapport. TETalk 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I looked at it more closely and I'll concede that edit might raise a suspicion. But I had made only a single edit in the 27+ hours prior to his/her edit, so I certainly wasn't being helped "from violating 3RR". Maybe it's an Off2riorob alter-ego, since I see now he was also involved in "defending" Couric. Whatever - it wasn't me. I retract my accusation; having been wrongly accused several times myself of being various editors (Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, Reddy-something, now this...) I should be more conscientious. Thank you for the compliments above; the feeling is mutual. As for AzureCitizen... he manages to keep his composure and civility during some fairly contentious storms, in a way to which I can only aspire. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Same here, retractions all around. BTW, I forgot to thank you for the thoughtful, complementary and humorous comment you left on my talk page. I intended to match it with an equally clever reply, but you set the bar too high and laziness stifled my creativity. Now, enough of this lovefest and no more stroking Azure's ego... we don't want him to get too full of himself. Face-wink.svg TETalk 03:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Participating inside mediation[edit]

Hello Morphh! Assuming you saw what happened on the Mediation project page's Talk Page, I'd like to make the friendly suggestion that you consider discontinuing any further discussions about the Crowd Size section conflict on private talk pages and let the mediators direct what happens next. Since any tendentious participants who resort to personal attacks, twisting words, and picking fights will quickly be straightened out by the referee, it's the best environment to make progress and sort this all out. Cheers, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do Morphh (talk) 18:08, 08 October 2010 (UTC)

AC, you already layed out the necessary basic points in your statement; stole my thunder, so to speak -- so I figured I'd have a little fun with my initial statement contribution. I had received some advice to try arguing from the opposition's position, but I'm fairly certain I didn't quite meet the spirit of that advice with my effort.  ;-) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor Mediation[edit]


I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi AzureCitizen. I just want to inform you that after originally having finished this "honest mistake" discussion[2], I brought it up again in the sockpuppet investigation [3]. Since you strongly argued to me to put this discussion at rest, I assume you may be not happy with this. But I think that there is really a problem and other users must be protected, as described in [4]: I was ready to WP:AGF for the future; but I think if various kinds of "honest mistakes" just continue then I think this cannot be ignored. However, this said, I provided my information to the sockpuppet investigation, that's all I can and I should do. It's not mine but the administrator's job now to make a decision. And as long as there is no negative decision, the mediation should continue without being affected by this sockpuppet investigation. If you have the feeling my contributioons to the mediation are negatively affected by this, just tell me. (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I saw the events that are transpiring at the SPI. Obviously it could be a distraction for everyone from the mediation, which is supposed to stress cooperation, but I'm not taking a position either way on the merits of it. Like Xenophrenic, I'm neither for or against BS24; an admin will be along sooner or later and decide whether or not a fresh start was warranted. I don't wish to see BS24 being banned, but he would be smart to consider proposing some voluntary topic restrictions for himself in the face of this SPI. --AzureCitizen (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Currently, as far as I know, nobody (except BS24 himself) has tried to link the SPI with the mediation. Als8o the Artist didn't. So I'm optimistic to keep these things separated. Yes, some who share crowd size opinions with BS24 also try to defend him in the SPI, while others not sharing his opinions act as plaintiff. But I think this does not necessarily mean that the mediation itself is affected. And I think anyone who would raise the SPI in the mediation would shoot into his own foot. So I'm quite confident that the mediation will refrain from personal attacks and focus on the topic. And regarding BS24, for me it is absolutely fine if BS24 continues participating every topic he wants (I don't understand this no-revisit requirement for a fresh start anyway), as long as he refrains from disruptive behavior. I don't know what the best solution is, but it isn't my call anyway, as you said, some admin will handle this in a neutral fashion. (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, to jump in for the Artist, I think the Artist is not more and not less "for or against" BS24 as for example me or Xenophrenic, who all provided some kind of evidence "against" the behavior of BS24. And I think that for all of us three, the reason for this is not the positions of BS24 in discussions, but the behavior. Maybe the style is different. But I understand the frustration of the Artist - for example, if someone again and again makes a change claiming that this is a consensus which obviously is false, this abuses your patience. On the other hand, I also understand you who wants to calm down everyone for the mediation, and I also understand others who defend BS24 to not loose an alley in the mediation. (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Landrieu Caper[edit]

Azure, I noticed something else about the landrieu business that you could help with:

Several months later, the charges were reduced from a felony to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses,[61][54][62] with the judge admonishing the defendants that "perceived righteousness of a cause does not justify nefarious and potentially dangerous actions."[63]

Apparently the judge who said this (Judge Duval) was not the same magistrate judge. And apparently the judge made the statement in some sort of an "order" (not sure what that means), which was called "very unuual:"

"It's not clear, then, what prompted U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval's order this week, which Dane Ciolino, a professor at Loyola Law School, called 'very unusual.'
'Usually in misdemeanors, district judges don't get involved in any respect,' Ciolino said. 'Certainly there are hundreds or maybe thousands of federal misdemeanor cases processed every year, and this almost never happens. Usually the magistrate handles the case, from arraignment to trial to sentencing.'"

Can you shed some light on what all this means? The magistrate judge seemed to have a completely different opinion of the matter: Should we quote him too if we quote the other guy? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Another tidbit:

"Judge Duval is best known for having issued an injunction in 2000 which barred the State of Louisiana from issuing "Choose Life" vanity automobile license plates, as the legislature had approved in 1999. Duval ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood of America, which took the view that the choice of displaying the plates violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because there was no alternative display available for supporters of abortion." SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My take on why they called it "very unusual" wasn't because of the order that was issued, but simply because a U.S. District judge was involved in the process when normally a Magistrate could handle a misdemeanor charge. However, two factors that distinguish this case: 1) the case wasn't typical, i.e., it had a higher profile and made the national news, so a more senior judicial officer getting involved when the case comes to his section first can happen, and 2) O'Keefe's case started out as a felony.
With regard to quotes from the Judge and the Magistrate, the quote from the Judge is an excerpt from a larger statement, words to the effect that "Federal buildings and federal officers have been and are the target of threats, and on occasion the victims of acts of violence," that "Deception is alleged to have been used by the defendants to achieve their purposes, which in and of itself is unconscionable.", and "Perceived righteousness of a cause does not justify nefarious and potentially dangerous actions." If you think we should include a quote from the Magistrate, I'm okay with that, feel free to make some proposals on the Talk Page. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

ACORN Undercover Videos[edit]

I was just checking out It says that the neutrality of that page is in dispute, as of July 2010. I also see that nobody has made a comment on the talk page since July (but I noticed you were involved in that). What's going on over there? How long do these things take to resolve? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag: A huge battle erupted in July when one editor wanted to introduce material asserting that the California AG investigation of ACORN was a sham and a politically motivated smear of O'Keefe's work; a slew of other editors joined in and there were many posts back and forth. There was never a formal consensus reached (i.e., all or nearly all editors coming to an agreement one way or another), but the defacto consensus ended up being that the contested material should be excluded, mostly for reasons having to do with concerns over reliable sourcing (the proponents mostly wanted to used partisan opinion pieces that made assertions but didn't back them with verifiable facts, or were speculative interpretations of events) and weight (that minority or fringe views should not be given equal billing). If you want to take the time to do so, you can carefully read through all the conversations post-by-post, plus read the conversations in the archives too, to get the full picture of everything that transpired. In any event, near the end of the arguments, the one editor who pressed the hardest for wanting to insert material critical of the California AG wanted to call for a global RfC, which is a process where uninvolved editors are invited to the page to view the pro- and anti- arguments enumerated by the two sides battling over the issue, and express their take on which side is right (RfC = Request for Comment). So everyone got ready for the RfC. Then, on the eve of requesting the RfC, that editor literally just walked away, never to bring up the issue again. Everyone waited for weeks to see if we were going forward with the RfC, but it all just faded away. That's where it has been sitting ever since...
Now that it's been two and a half months, I am going to remove that tag, and post something on the Talk Page accordingly. In theory, anyone can tag an article (and there are lots of different types of tags, from tags about article neutrality to tags that just assert the article needs to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, etc), and other editors shouldn't arbitrarily remove that tag as long as there are parties on the Talk Page debating the merits of the tag; but it's been 10 weeks and the editor who posted the tag has made no effort to return to the debate.
If you decide to get interested in it yourself, feel free to dive in; the most important piece of advice I can give you is that it would be best to work your way back through the Talk Page, and the Talk Page archives, to bring yourself up to speed on everything that happened previously, so that if the issue heats up again, you are up to speed on what happened before and ready to debate the issues. --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. So that tag doesn't actually mean there was some sort of separate process taking place. Thanks for the explanation. I'm just surprised something that was apparently that controversial hasn't been edited in two weeks, and not much in two months. I don't know if I woul have taken the approach these guys did or not, but there does seam to be some bias on that page. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger that. Articles like that are always hotbeds for controversy to erupt over perceived bias in one direction or the other. All we can do as editors is strive for what seems to be the most neutral version possible. Also, some of the debates that erupt are damn near exhausting, with arguments going back and forth for weeks. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

...who was the originator of that Neutrality Tag business?

Phoenix and Winslow, he's still active on Wikipedia, you can find his contributions page here.

Do these things generally reach an equilibrium point over time? When there are pages you've spent considerable time on regarding an important issue, do you generally have to perpetually monitor it and vigorously defend it repeatedly?SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

They do generally reach an equilibrium point where they become somewhat calm and stabilized, but there is no guarantee that someone won't come along in the future and radically reorganize the article. It's also give-and-take. In theory, editors shouldn't be "camping" articles, vigorously resisting any attempts to change them; instead, each proposed change, at the time and place of it's making, by whomever making it, should be considered and weighed separately, and should stand or fall based on it's individual merits. However, patterns emerge where someone new comes along but makes a change which is really old news, and there are places veteran editors can point to in the archives which show this was fought over previously and a clear consensus emerged that the article should be this way or that way, etc. The longer you've been monitoring an article, the more you see the patterns. That being said, the best approach is always remember that we (as individual editors) don't actually "own" an article, and always be open to compromise in the spirit of a collective.
Saw your comment on the article talk page about being new - don't worry, everyone is "new" at some point in learning how the collaboration and dispute resolution process works. For your part, you've demonstrated that you can learn quickly - trust me, there are plenty of editors around here who've been editing far longer, but still clash constantly over point of view, resort to personal attacks, get themselves embroiled in disputes at WP:ANI or worse, engage in things like sock puppetry, etc. Eventually, they get themselves blocked for longer and longer periods, or outright banned.
Are you an English major? AzureCitizen (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

lol, no. Why do you ask? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just noted some of your edits involved correcting the finer points of punctuation, quotes, etc., and a lot of new users don't bother to properly format their reference citations... things an English major would catch quickly, LOL. AzureCitizen (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well it's partly just an OCD thing, but also wth the citations, it's partly that I was playing around with it to learn how the citation coding works. I actually always despised bibliographies, works cited lists, and anything having to do with MLA with burning fury. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

AC, I think we were just trying to simultaneously make the same edit. I noticed that there are several more duplicate references, both for the press release, and the actual report. There are about 8 total. I'll defer to you on this. SpecialKCL66 (talk 01:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger that, I'll make a point of cleaning them up soon... :) AzureCitizen (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Restore honor[edit]

Sorry for my my harsh comment at [5], it wasn't appropriate. I thought this change was another attempt to add controversial higher numbers bypassing the moderation, so I was angry. But obviously you really just tried to settle down this mini-edit-war. (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusion and misunderstandings happen very quickly in this online environment. I take it you made the revert, then went back to look at what I'd done and realized I was trying to settle the issue by finding a post-rally article that had the crowd size quote in the article itself. The learning lesson here is that sometimes it's better for us to just look for a better source article than to stay focused on the article we have which was fraught with problems.
It is readily apparent to me that like several other news organizations, ABC was just pulling numbers out of the air based on little to no scientific evidence, but a reliably sourced simple exact quote ("more than 100,000") is uniform and keeps proper pace with all the other guesstimates from the media in the subsection, and should be more than acceptable to both factions embroiled in the mediation. Also, this situation appears to have started not because BS24 made a change to the crowd size subsection, but because a third party editor changed the section and BS24 reverted thinking that others were now tinkering with contested section. That third party editor wasn't wrong to do so, but it's important to note that's how this little "mini-edit-war" got started.  :)
I see now that BS24 appears to have been blocked, so that might significantly change the mediation dynamic. I also see that you've asked AGK to lock down the entire page while we're having the mediation - honestly, I think that would be a mistake, because the mediation is only about the crowd controversy subsection which is buried deep in the article. Other editors working on other parts of the main article shouldn't have to sit idly for weeks on end waiting for the eleven of us to settle our dispute over the crowd estimates subsection, and this was a very minor blow-up.  :) Wouldn't you agree? Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Basically - if I understand this chaos correctly - we got into a circular loop: Some editor pointed out that the number in one article was only a pre-rally estimation. BS24 changed this back because he didn't see that. The other user changed it back. Then BS24 found the other post-rally article but only saw the title. Then I added the other (contradicting) numbers of the article body itself. And then you wanted to resolve this chaos, and changed back to the original article and it's pre-rally estimate. Then I changed that back to the post-rally number... (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
99% correct, with the exception of my final edit - I didn't change it back to the original article and it's pre-rally estimate, I actually changed the citation to a new and different ABC News article that was never cited previously, dated August 28th, which had a post-rally report that had been overlooked... and I think that subtle nuance was also overlooked... but it's all good now. :) AzureCitizen (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you really sure? Which edit are you referring to? Because [6] went back to the pre-crowd estimate [7], as far I don't oversee something... (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the edits I'm referring to are here and here. In the first edit, date/time 19:05 on Oct 31, BS24 reverts back to the original citation to an ABC online news article by Human Khan dated August 27th (Citation). Clearly that's a pre-Rally prediction because it's the day before the Rally. Other edits and tinkering occurred before and after that first edit (edit warring?), but now look at the second and final edit, date/time 12:00 on Nov 1. It cites to a very similar looking Human Khan article dated August 28th (Citation). It's extremely similar... it's written by the same reporter... including much of the same text... but it's also different in a key aspect. An additional by-line reporter is added (reporter Kevin Dolak) and it's dated the day of the Rally, exact time unknown, whereas the Aug. 27th has to have been the day before. Where the August 27th article says "The rally at the National Mall, has attracted more than 100,000 people gathering to see speeches", the August 28th article says "Today at the National Mall, the rally has attracted more than 100,000 people gathered to see speeches." Present tense "gathering" has been changed to past-tense "gathered." At the very end of the article, at the bottom of page 2, we see the same two sentences about NPS and HSEMA estimating 100k and 100k-200k respectively - Khan and Dolak haven't bothered to change much from the story as it carried the day before - so it isn't hard to guess where they are really getting their 100k guestimate - but we now have a situation where they've put out a report sometime during the day of the Rally itself, with a past-tense statement "has attracted" and "gathered." I figured this was the simplest way to get the crowd size controversy section settled to quiet down the edit warring and go back to equilibrium. I was also trying to solve another problem you may not have been consciously aware of, when you were re-inserting material like this edit here. Click on that edit, then click on the blue highlighted "Revision as of 08:04, 2 November 2010 (edit) (undo)" just above your edit summary, then slide down to the crowd controversy section and look what's happened to the text and the crowd size estimates box. On your browser, do you see how the text is all squeezed into a narrow column and the text box is enormously oversized? I don't know if you caught that during your edits but I was trying to put that problem to rest too. In any event, what do I really think of this "estimate" by ABC? Of course I think it's pure crap, just like all the other ridiculous estimates by the media (except the scientific analysis done by APL). Just curious, have you been following all the talk on the Restoring Honor Talk Page the last few days? Did you see the article I referenced here? Check out this quote: "From a 1967 Time article on the Berkeley Vietnam War protest crowds: 'Estimating the size of a crowd may be the last area of fantasy in the newspaper business,' observed Herbert A. Jacobs, 63, a longtime Wisconsin newspaperman who now lectures at the University of California" I think that says it all right there. :) AzureCitizen (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't saw that your article was slightly different. And I agree that also the 28th "estimate" is obviously the pre-rally expectation; so it would be wrong to pretend in the Wikipedia article that it is a post-rally estimate. I added this issue as 9. to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Restoring_Honor_rally#Statement_by_82.135.29.209. The text box looks fine on my browser, but if it does not work under all circumstances, then it definitely was important to fix. Nice quote :) (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the reason for all the chaos is the sloppiness of ABC. And yes, this "mini-edit-war" was stared by a third editor...
About blocking: I'm not absolutely sure about it, some hours ago I thought it is a good idea. While I still think it has advantages, I also see the negative side effects. And maybe after BS24 has gone the risk of such a mini-edit-war is smaller. So I'm also fine also with not blocking it. Maybe a semi-block, then as IP I'm the only one blocked ;) (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Face-wink.svg I can appreciate the humor, but I'd rather not see you being shut out either just because your an IP. By the way, I saw your mature comments concerning TNXMan and applaud your statements there. It is right to stand up for civil behavior. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your efforts as an SPI clerk[edit]

Hi Tnxman, I just want to express my support and concur with Frank and that you do not deserve being excoriated for what happened in the NYyankees51 SPI case. It appears that it was an intolerably long wait for some that a case filed on October 15th didn't result in the desired block until November 2nd. Instead of being satisfied with the result, they seem unable to drop the stick; I am sorry to see that you have become a target of that residual anger. Please know that your efforts on Wikipedia are appreciated, and that most of us assume good faith. Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. TNXMan 00:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing Persons[edit]

Hi, AzureCitizen. It seems odd that Phoenix and Winslow (, SpecialKCL66, DoctorFuManchu (ProfessorLoesch) has/have stopped editing since the midterm elections. There were a couple more edits I had planned for the ACORN video article, perhaps he'll add some input when I get to those. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It is weird how they all just disappeared, kind of unexpected. Maybe they all lost interest? I also noticed "Top1Percent" and "MinusJason" vanished too. In any event, if you have some more improvements for the videos article, please do add them! AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, have you noticed that our mediator (Wgfinley) hasn't been seen in over two weeks? We were all managing to keep away from the Restoring Honor article during the mediation, but now that it has stalled, the "crowd size" related edit skirmishes are beginning anew. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

He appears to be AWOL, with very little progress now on the mediation. Perhaps he got very busy with events in real life, or maybe his first mediation assignment turned out to be a rather unpleasant way to "cut his teeth" as you put it. I don't know what to do about that situation... I suppose we could ask AGK to appoint a new mediator, or just continue to let it sit as long as the skirmishes don't descend into all out war again. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of that article... I'm not sure how much longer I can keep defending the Bachmann/Park Police estimate of 1.6 million with a straight face. It is a wonderful tool, however, for helping editors to realize their double-standard application of reasons for getting rid of it. If they call it absurd, they must then recognize the absurdity of the 650K, 500K and 300K guesstimates, and remove them also. If they call it unsubstantiated, they must also acknowledge the same for all those guesstimates, leaving only the scientifically substantiated estimates. If they defend the 300K, 500K and 650K figures, saying it doesn't matter if they are accurate as long as they appear in reliable sources — then they have just defended the inclusion of the 1.6mil number as well. We can't pick and choose our preferred absurdities, and I had hoped my pregnant-Beck analogy would drive that common sense home for some editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is a quandary for those who favor the 300-650k range... more like quicksand really. I'm sure you heard about Ms. Bachmann's recent news interview where she asserted the President's trip to Asia was incurring costs of $200 million per day, which is more than the war in Afghanistan. At least her "methodologies" are consistent, eh? By the way, did you notice how the editors over at the Restoring Sanity rally handled the crowd size issue? It got sorted out very quickly that the scientific estimates were the only thing credible and any nonsense was promptly dismissed. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope all is well with you (and I hope nothing catastrophic has befallen our missing co-editors), Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Same to you! Things are well here, looking forward to travelling and being with family around Thanksgiving (but I'll probably still be logging in here and there to follow along, LOL)... AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

James O'Keefe[edit]

I object to your removing a call for visitors to attend to the balance of the page and discuss their observations. It seems reasonable and called for even if for no other reason than the history of concerns that have been voiced on the discussion page over a few months and the furious deletions of well sourced edits over the last few days. The page has some substantial, dramatic and critical problems that I am discussing. Most urgent tonight was my discovery that amongst a string of out of context and strangely hagiographic quotes, there was a quote sourced by Mr. OKeefe's own website! This article may indeed be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. I'm very angry about what is seeming like a ver quietly and subtly hijacked page. I hope you agree that it's worth opening the discussion as wide as possible. Of course, I hope as an experienced editor that you too can join in the reconsideration of the whole page. Thanks. Gcherrits (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gcherrits. It would be best to have these discussions on the article's Talk Page, rather than on private user pages, so that any interested editors can join in the discussion there. With regard to "removing a call for visitors to attend to the balance of the page," I removed the COI tag you placed there with the edit summary "Absent specific accusations on the Talk Page, a COI tag is nebulous in this regard and can never be properly adjudicated. Feel free to re-add if there is a specific editor singled out." If there is a specific editor who you think is making COI edits in the article, please feel free to point this out on the Talk Page. In absence of something specific, however, a COI tag like that is very vague and can never be resolved. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Azure, nice work trimming the OKeefe Bio. I admit I was really angry at the stream of heinous hagiographic honorific out of context quotes in that section and I probably went overboard and sloppy with replaceing the context. It's better now, nicely done. (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC) glenn
All good - no problem. Finding the right balance is always tricky anyways.  :) Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Since when is Wikipedia an op-ed? The point is that randomly plopping in an opinion from Michael Gerson - a heavy public broadcasting contributor - is giving page space and weight to an opinion writer arbitrarily because he happens to present a view point that certain WP editors want. How is that acceptable? DoctorFuManchu (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Howdy DoctorFuManchu! These kinds of debates and questions are usually best resolved by having discussions on the article's Talk Page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here, but I did not want to start a new thread with a similar name. I think the O'Keefe intro is a hairy monster. Could you come to its discussion page and look at a snippet of a proposed replacement? Ogo (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Bump. Ogo (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ogo, I am sorry your reply and request got totally overlooked somehow, probably during a period that I was on break from Wiki. Are you still working on those issues? AzureCitizen (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Caylee's Law[edit]

If you are interested, there is a stub here: I'm going back to medieval articles but I am sure that you and others could do a good job on it. Nice working with you. Mugginsx (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware someone had already started an article on that! It will probably grow in size as more legislatures join. I myself am about to take a forced break for the next six days - am going out of town and probably won't Wiki much from the road on the laptop. Nice working with you too and finding common ground. Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Fifth Amendment rights self-incrimination, I answered you on my talk page since that is where you left your message. Perhaps that is why we agree more often than not. P.S. I am a retired. I am a little rusty in some of the discussion. Plus, I really do prefer medieval articles, although the medieval research requires my complete attention as opposed to this article. The main reason I now watch this article is because a user decided she was going to take it over and "completely re-structure" what you and all of the other editors worked so hard to accomplish! Her re-structuring idea looked like a high school composiion outline. She does not have the least idea about legal matters, if you look at some of her quotes. She actually thinks that Casey is going to go out and talk about this crime - like it would not incriminate her in a cover-up and she could not go to jail for that. I am sure Casey will try to write a book but it won't be about her baby drowing and her father covering it up. Oh, and I don't know about you, but if I hear about the Lindburg case one more time I think I will be sick. As you know, it has absolutely no parallels to this case. Sorry to get off topic. Good luck with the article. I will look in from time to time but it sounds like it is in good hands with you and others. Mugginsx (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding a vote for re-structuring Death of Casey Anthony Article, a user has brought this up again and I thought you might want to vote. I do not know how to accomplish the voting setup. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I can understand and appreciate that you'd like to see some sort of definitive resolution on whether or not there is going to be a major restructuring of the article. Candidly, it's a frequent misunderstanding on Wikipedia that when there is disagreement, a vote can be called for to settle the issue and "majority rules." If you've never read it before, you might want to read up on WP:VOTE to get a better understanding of how that works. Flyer22 is probably on the right track when he says lets just wait to see how the sandbox shakes out... AzureCitizen (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for being the voice of reason, too. Mugginsx (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
This is for you! Thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party movement[edit]

Thanks for this edit. It should satisfy everybody. Sometimes a new perspective is needed to provide an obvious solution. –CWenger (^@) 20:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope it helps... I know political articles tend to have polarized perspectives. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I rarely take issue with edits made by AzureCitizen, as they are not only well considered, but they often have the additional valuable quality of being bulletproof when made during an ongoing "edit war" firefight. I must take exception with this edit, however. Please read the source to which that sentence is cited here, and pay particular attention to the first two sentences. AzureCitizen's choice of words is an improvement over using "alleged", but still falls short of 100% accuracy, as congressman Frank never "said" he was called slurs. They were witnessed by reporters, one was even caught on video, and the slurs then "were reported". Even the WaPo article takes care not to say "Frank said..." when it runs down the list of different incidents. Also note that the WaPo article states that the incidents were "reported", and goes on to explain that some accuse the Washington Post of "reporting" those incidents without proper proof. So I have returned the "were reported" text to the article. (I hope this also answers the question you asked of me on your talk page, CWenger.) Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Barney Frank didn't say it but Heath Schuler, another congressman, did, as is mentioned later on in the paragraph. So it is true but could be more informative. I suggest we just cut out the last half of the lead sentence in the paragraph:

On March 20, 2010, before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on, several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "nigger" at them. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he heard the slurs and was spat upon. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".

CWenger (^@) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It's "Shuler" - and no, Shuler didn't say it. He did, however, later, not on March 20, confirm hearing slurs. So it is not true. That prompts me to ask why you now suggest cutting out the true last half of the lead sentence?
Looking beyond that single sentence, I've been of the opinion that the whole section is in dire need of some serious rework. Rework that will probably make this discussion moot. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bolding the changes. I actually intended to do that but then forgot. –CWenger (^@) 02:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem! :) AzureCitizen (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Racist Personal Attacks[edit]

Just FYI. I hope I haven't overreacted since it means the image requires an admin now to link to new (and appropriate) content pages, but I didn't want the offender to be able to conveniently swing by and revert that nastiness back onto your talk page again; at least now they'll be denied the use of the image. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

changing an article title (slightly)[edit]

There is a stub article entitled In limine. Can you believe it? Of course it should be Motion In Limine but I do not know how to change an article title. I have read the regulations but I don't understand enough about editing to grasp how to do it. Do you think, only if you want to, you would either tell me how in plain English how to do it, or do it yourself? Only if you want to. Incidentally, that show about the innocent men was on again today on Tavis Smiley show on PBS for U (special PBS station I get). I couldn't watch it again though, too too sad. Enjoy our conversations and thank you for your educated advice. Mugginsx (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi! It's actually fairly easy to do, let me try explaining it another way for you: Do you see how at the top of every article, you have the usual tabs like "edit", "view history", etc? And to the right of that is a little star, which indicates whether or not you are watching the page on your list? And then to the right of that, is a tiny triangle that points down? Put your cursor on that triangle (or click on it), and a little box opens up beneath with a single option ("move"). Click move, then enter the new title on the next page you see (along with your reasoning) and click "move page" below that. Done!  :) AzureCitizen (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I will try it after I take my dog to the park. She is chewing at my legs and I can't think. (smile) Mugginsx (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Why delete anti-Whites racism (and the calling to kill white babies)[edit]

Why [already] delete it from the NBPP page while discussion is still on? Saverol (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's guidance on resolving conflicts when one editor inserts something that another editor objects to here: WP:BRD.
BRD stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold and inserted new material (no problem there), he reverted based on his objections (equally valid), and now you are both discussing it on the Talk Page to work it out and reach consensus. Hope that helps... AzureCitizen (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to look at this?[edit]

We have been discussing possible BLP issues on article talk page. I have concerns over the Jury Foreman' remarks and to be fair, Flyer has made many concessions. She is a good faith editor. Maybe I spent too long in Criminal Law and have the appropriate paranonia one gets when that see and speak to sociapaths everyday in their work. I don't really like legal articles. In the discussions with the editors I have used these references. The websites that I quoted were the following: Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page. The legal precident, though a very old case, is still being used today. It is also found here: and here: and here: I went to an administrator (with the approval of Flyer) and was told what I knew to take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I hate noticeboards because they have a way of gettng ugly. There are many good faith editors on this article but I am fearful of BLP issues. I think I will back away for now because discussion of criminal law brings back bad memories working for a Bronx DA and a criminal defense lawyer and of the kind of people I had to be associated with in my work, i.e., dealing with socialpaths, killers, rich perverts, white collar theives (lawyers), men who robbed decent people of their life savings through scams which, in one case, resulted in a suicide of a decent person and a short, very cozy prison for the rich defendant. This old man sent me a card at work from his cozy prison and I feel the need for a bath whenever I remember him. Anyway, I am off to another article (medieval) Not too many BLP issues there (smile) and I wanted to thank you for all your help. If you are interested in the discussion it is on the talk page under "Some possible BLP issues". Mugginsx (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Now it is also at: Mugginsx (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion initiated by CarolMooredc at: if you would like to comment. Mugginsx (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mugginsx! I have been gone from Wikipedia for a couple weeks now and haven't even been looking at articles in the intervening period due to lack of internet access. Truth be told, it was nice to take a break, as Wikipedia can become an addiction and eat up a lot of your time. I will take a look at the noticeboard discussion shortly and post a comment if it looks like I can be of some assistance. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Helping to delineate complex and complicated issue with patience, grace and a tremendous amount of knowledge! Mugginsx (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You're too kind, but thank you. Glad it got resolved and everyone came to consensus... :) AzureCitizen (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As to your question on the article talk page[edit]

AzureCitizen: He states he was in error over that particular statement. It is here on MY talk page. Should have been on yours. Maybe he thought we were the same person. Do not know. Anyway, it is here: He states there: ::Nevermind - It was "truncated for performance reasons", which is why I didn't see it in the preview window. Silly me for not checking the full diff page! Duh... Shirtwaist 10:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Mugginsx (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Really sorry about all the mess. If you want to you can access me through e-mail Mugginsx (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
(no problem, will respond on your talk page) AzureCitizen (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sagan / Contact[edit]

Thanks for fixing my dumb typo 1985-1995 on the date of the novel CONTACT. And for leaving in the info on the film treatment. This is one of my favorite novels and I can't understand why a first edition isn't worth more money.--GroveGuy (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem! It's also one of my favorites as well (but truth be told, I saw the film first, THEN I read the book, etc)... AzureCitizen (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Want to comment?[edit]

Hi Azure. directing your attention here if you care to comment: Mugginsx (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of people have weighed in on that topic, with the majority in favor of keeping it. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe[edit]

The word "deceptive" is used once in the body, used by someone named Gerson who writes opinions for the Washington Post. That's not good enough sourcing for a contentious comment or phrase in the lead, I think. Can you point me to something I'm missing? Thanks, AC. --Kenatipo speak! 04:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, and I think that in a BLP, contentious unsourced statements are not allowed anywhere, body, lead or elsewhere.) --Kenatipo speak! 05:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As you know, the issue is being discussed at length now on the article talk page, so I may decide to chime in there. AzureCitizen (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

George Wallace[edit]

It is completely acceptable format identify a politicians party in the first sentence. Wallace's political affiliation is particularly important in the context of his career because he served on the edge of the political realignment. Ordinarily a politicians political affiliation would not be so important, but in his case his allegiance to one party over the other has particular historical significance and in order to reduce ambiguities belongs in the first sentence. RoteMemorization (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free however to discuss, I haven't reverted and wont until we agree on something. RoteMemorization (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence at the front of the lede says "three as a Democrat and one on the American Independent Party ticket", so I think forcing in "Democrat Politician" in the first sentence is redundant and unnecessary (and the other Alabama Governor articles do not do that either). What is the historical significance issue here that would justify making it so redundant? AzureCitizen (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Army CI[edit]

Nothing in that article is classified, and the badge is the old version. I do however have a lot of past experience with Army Counterintelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by MI Guy 35E (talkcontribs) 22:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


Please do not revert without discussion. I made a chance that was not effectivly challenged.Basil rock (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Please join in on the Discussion Page and make a more compelling case in light of opposition from multiple editors. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

Enough is enough, I have reported you for edit warring according to the WP:3RR on the WP:AN/EW Truthtellers78 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

...and here we see the result for anyone who is interested. It is usually better to assume good faith when working with other editors you disagree with, and to strive for objectivity in your point of view. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Marines[edit]

Hi Azure! You know about things military, perhaps you could help by friend over there? Mugginsx (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mugginsx! Been awhile. I do know some things about the military, although a quick look at Talk:Occupy Marines and it quickly becomes apparent a bunch of editors are embroiled in somewhat of a mess there. At first glance, there doesn't appear to be much I can contribute to the article, as the conflict seems to be over the issue of what is and isn't reliable sourcing, and what should and shouldn't be in the article. I noted WCM made an ANI posting about it just a little awhile ago. If there something very specific and military related involved, let me know and I might take a stab at it.
On an unrelated note, just wanted to tell you that a few weeks ago I happened by chance to check my registered email address (it's not the one I normally use; I was in the process of changing most of my passwords), and saw that you'd sent some emails many months ago on some things (now moot). Unfortunately, I almost never check that email address and normally just stick to sending and receiving messages here on the talk pages - just wanted to explain what happened and apologize for why you never heard back!  :) AzureCitizen (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
That's OK about the email. As you say, it is a moot point now. Yeah, the article seemed to pretty hot but I really didn't understand it so I thought you might take a look. Thank you for doing so. You're a peach! Mugginsx (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

AFRM operations[edit]

Rather than go back and forth with edits, I figured I would bring it here. When I originally researched this, I was under the impression that no matter how many Operations a servicemember has been in, they would still only receive one AFRM. After I personally served in both OEF and OIF, I questioned it, since now I had two different contingency operations. My question went all the way to HRC since no one at my unit level could answer it. HRC informed me that each operation was a separate contingency. Each operation is for a totally different area of the world and has totally different operational orders. Although they may be grouped as GWOT, they are still separate contingency operations.

Example- a man serves in OEF in Afghanistan in 2004. He redeploys. He goes to Iraq for OIF in 2006. He redeploys. He deploys again in 2010 for OND. He is awarded a total of 3 AFRM w/ M device. One for each operation. He would wear a numeral 3 with the M device (and any hourglass if awarded).

Cahilj (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Cahilj! If HRC told you that each is separate and you qualify for two awards of the "M" Device (thus a numeral "2"), how come the reference link from HRC points to an article on the HRC website that contains the following "example" (you'll need to scroll down a ways to see it, well past the chart that groups Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn under the umbrella of the GWOT - see below for the text which I've cut and pasted from the HRC article's "Questions and Answers" section). AzureCitizen (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a Soldier eligible for two awards of the AFRM with "M" device after being deployed to Operations Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF)? No. Operations Noble Eagle (ONE), OEF and OIF fall under one involuntary callup action, Executive Order 13223, September 14, 2001, better known as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) contingency/conflict. Therefore, no matter how many times a Soldier mobilizes in support of the GWOT, only one "M" device is authorized. Additional information may be obtained from DODM 1348-33, Volume 2, dated 23 November 2010.

Sure enough, the answer is spelled out in DODM 1348-33, Volume 2. You can download a copy at this link. Take a look at paragraph 6c(1)(a)3 and you'll find that ONE, OEF, and OIF are grouped together as a single contingency operation under paragraph 6c(1)(a)3. Next, take a look at paragraph 6c(1)(a)2 , which says that multiple periods of service during one designated contingency under paragraph 6c(1)(a)3 count as one “M” device award. Thus, the HRC website is correct in saying that even if someone mobilizes multiple times and has separate call-up orders under ONE, OEF, and OIF, they all still fall under the GWOT contigency and hence only a single "M" device is awarded. Make sense now?
I will go ahead and correct the article back to it's original form accordingly, but I'll also add in DODM 1348-33 Vol 2 as an additional reference for future readers. It looks like someone at HRC gave you bad information; if you kept their POC information, you can call them back and point them in the right direction. I can certainly empathize with your desire to wear a numeral on the AFRM ribbon after having had multiple deployments, but it's actually unauthorized. I too have been called up under separate OEF and OIF orders and deployed to theater more than once, but I only wear the "M" with no numerals (besides the hourglass). Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I will be trying to get in touch with the individual at HRC who gave me the incorrect information. Although, this was back in 2006, so I doubt that he is even there anymore. I'm curious to know what the previous DODM 1348 stated, since the one referenced is from 2010. It may very well have been totally separate operations, and they were grouped in 2010 with the onset of New Dawn, in which case he would have been correct until it changed. I will look into that. Cahilj (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Please let me know what you find out - the subject is of personal interest to me as well. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It has been several months, and I've finally gotten settled down again. I was able to find the version of DoDM 1348 preceding the 2010 version. It is dated September 1996. It's much less detailed than the current 2010 version, with no mention of specific contingencies or operations for any time frame, let alone GWOT. Here is the link- link
As far as I can tell, until the actual combining of the contingencies, they were all separate as defined in AP4. (and referenced back to AP4. and AP4., since each activation was under a different set of title 10 orders, with a different contingency name, and therefore a different period of service.
Using the 1996 version, one could make the argument that any contingency in Iraq would fall under OIF, and any contingency in Afghanistan would fall under OEF, therefore eliminating multiple contingencies for one operation, but why then would each phase of both be given a different contingency name and subsequently published by DoD? (And also- what about all the non-AFG locations for OEF?) Granted, that's what actually is described in the 2010 version, but from 1996 to 2010, what was the actual breakdown?
I have been unable to find a specific date as to when all the contingencies were lumped into the GWOT umbrella (prior to the publication of the 2010 version). I feel that would be the best answer for this. Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that since each contingency had it's own name, and wasn't lumped until 2010, that any award of the "M" device between 1996 and 2010 would count as a separate award for individual contingencies, based on my second paragraph in this statement. And although they are now lumped, any award made during that time period would be still be valid, since the regulation changed after the award, with no mention of retro-activity. Thoughts? Cahilj (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Also- EO 13223 makes no mention of "GWOT" or any specific contingency, which further confuses the situation, since again, none of the operations were actually lumped on paper until 2010. This is higher than HRC as far as explanations go, but I doubt that anyone in the DoD awards section would be able to make any sense of it anyways. Cahilj (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Welcome back! I read what you wrote above and thought it over for awhile. If I understand correctly, you've wondering if perhaps because DODM 1348.33 V2 didn't list ("lump together") these contingency operations until the significant update of the manual in 2010, that perhaps a different policy was in effect up until then, and perhaps these were separate contingency operations until they were put together on paper in 2010. However, I think it's speculative to say they were separate (each counting for a separate "M" numeral) prior to 2010 and that the 2010 manual suddenly changed the scheme, and all the problems that would cause for sorting out awards with personnel who mobilized during the 14 year period between 1996 and 2010, with a different set of rules for personnel mobilizing after 2010, etc. I think that the primary contingency groups designated by 1348.33 are actually based on the executive orders which created them, and if you note, there is only one executive order for each major group, which draws on the cited authorities. There are not separate executive orders for ONE, OEF, and OIF; nor separate executive orders for Desert Shield and Desert Storm, or for Joint Endeavor, Joint Guard, Joint Forge, etc. There is only one executive order for each, hence they are parsed out in 1348.33 accordingly. Compare these three for example:

  1. (Bosnia)
  2. (Gulf War I)
  3. (GWOT)

Let me ask you a different question before I proceed further. Are you able to view the following HRC web page, and have you had a chance to read it all the way through from top to bottom previously? --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi, AzureCitizen. I relocated an inappropriate section of text from an article talk page to an editor's talk page, here. You had commented, so this is just a notification that the discussion has been moved. Article talk pages are an inappropriate venue for holding an inquisition of editors anyway. I hope all is well with you, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
PS~ Are the similarities between this edit by an IP user, and this edit by Warmtoast just coincidental? It seems these folks always gravitate to me :-/ Xenophrenic (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello X! Life is good and all is well. I commented at the K.S. BLP because I didn't think his or her claims of skewing the article had merit and thought the quickest way to resolve the matter would be to prompt that request accordingly; with regard to the similarities to him or her and the IP, I'm sure you've nailed that one (you always have a knack for sniffing them out). I think your latest posting on the Talk Page has probably put things to rest now, unless the other editor has a bad case of WP:STICK, etc... :) AzureCitizen (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


Yeah I saw that. Should be good now. I'm not a good <ref>er.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Award Star clarity[edit]

I left a message on the Award star talk page in regards to the discussion of the JMUA. I couldn't provide any clarity, but my interpretation is that the Oak Leaf Cluster is the authorized device for the JMUA across all services. Though the US Navy authorizes the Award Star for their ribbons, because the JMUA is a DoD award, I stand with the Oak Leaf Cluster being the only authorized device. Bullmoosebell (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I've responded on the Talk Page and I think we have a resolution now.  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Splendid. Now it's an accurate reflection of the device, though it pains me to replace the term Award Star with 5/16 inch star. However, what about the smaller award star for miniature ribbons (3/16 inch star, I believe)? It seems there should some text regarding that device on the 5/16 Inch Star page.

I agree, the term "5/16 inch star" is downright painful compared to "award star", isn't it! Leave it to the DoD to give it such an awkward name. Maybe they'll change it someday? On the miniature version, good point, I've gone ahead and added that in... AzureCitizen (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I've proposed a change to the infobox images on the Oak leaf cluster page (discussion is on the talk page). Lemme know what you think. Bullmoosebell (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better that way - I left a brief comment there agreeing we should implement your change. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

5/16 inch star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Department of Defense
Oak leaf cluster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Department of Defense

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks 1,000,000[edit]

Thanks for all your help with so many pages recently. is a sockpuppet for YahwehSaves. Though he may think he has good intentions, his methods and abilities have proven sophomoric, narrow-minded, and often-times disruptive (I, along with other users & administrators, have been battling this guy for months). Be it known; that user (both log-ins) has been auto-signed to eliminate their comments from going un-signed. Again, thanks for your hard work & I look forward to working with you on other pages. Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I try to cooperate with people but some folks make it very difficult! I'm going to post a message on the Talk Page of the "V" article right now asking him to break his edits up so that changes and disagreements are easier to handle... AzureCitizen (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for all your recent hard work correcting United States military award devices and keeping Wikipedia honest. Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


The link that is being applied under Violence by alleged Volksfront Members is not Volksfront related. I have removed it. I have checked with the Chapter and they have had no members involved in the incident. The referenced article also makes no mention of Volksfront or any Volksfront members.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vfusa (talkcontribs) 00:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: captain discussion[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message about the page splitting discussion at Talk:Captain (United States)'s talk page. daintalk   01:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

... for the advice. Insomesia (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Selectively edited videos - Redux[edit]

Hi, AzureCitizen! Regarding this edit of yours, while you correctly identified the contested "McRaven" text in the most recent edit war on that article, did you overlook the fact that those same warriors were also contesting any mention of that group's associations with the Republican Party and Tea Party? They were purging both sets of content with the same revert. IMO, their associations are relevant information in any article that mentions that group, their videos, their attack ads, or their targets.

It's the Swifties all over again: create political attack ads and videos; spam them as much as possible, while innocently denying any political motivation, before fact checkers, investigative journalists, etc., eventually dissect, expose and discredit the group and their attacks. Then they will slither back under their rock after election season, smug about the shitstorm they kicked up, and uncaring about the tarnished reputation they leave stuck to their unfortunate apolitical bretheren that share a military unit or service branch with these asshats. Blech. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Howdy! Apparently I missed that fact and was primarily just keying on the text of the edit summaries from the two editors who resorted to multiple reverts to remove the text that had been agreed-upon by others... the only information of relevance communicated in those edit summaries was that it had to do with McRaven's comments (with very little contribution on the article's Talk Page). Turning to the swift boating, it really is a shame. Did you also see the comment here about how McRaven put out an email to all SEALS and SF personnel recently? He said "By attaching a special operations moniker or a unit or service name to a political agenda, those individuals have now violated the most basic of our military principles." I couldn't agree more... AzureCitizen (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that article link when you raised it on a Talk page as a matter of relevant interest. He sounds rather upset, and rightly so.
Heh. You beat me to the revert with that edit, but mine would have rolled back to Sept. 1, just prior to MissMatching's insertion of the extremely problematic text. As you noted, the McGlowan stuff is nowhere in the cited source; Webb's NAACP "selective racism" wasn't "against the Tea Party" (it wasn't against Santelli either, but darn it, it made just as much sense!); spelling issues (is "practising" British, perhaps?). Your edit will no doubt get knee-jerked, and I'll roll it back until some sort of substantive content can be obtained. The 1RR probation has its benefits, but I think it also encourages folks to daily drive-by disruption. Addendum: If editors push to have content on the whole Webb & NAACP "selective racism" thing, at least there are sources that explain the context. However, I was still hoping to continue to shrink that section rather than expand it. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Ooops, I didn't look that closely and only verified the bone through the nose part... wish I'd looked closer at it! I'll keep my eye on it too and be more careful next time... AzureCitizen (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your response on the Talk: Faithful Word Baptist Church[edit]

Thanks for saying it so well and so thoroughly. -- Revanneosl (talk)

Happy to try and help clear things up, thanks. AzureCitizen (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help![edit]

Wild blueberries near Sydney.jpg Thank you berry much for your help!
They're not quite azure, but they're delicious and good for you. Thanks for your help on Now I'm a little less worried about it falling into the deep blue sea. Enjoy! – MrX 17:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, happy to contribute and help wherever I can!  :) AzureCitizen (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for working with me to make Kerry Bentivolio a better article. As you can obviously tell, I'm new and rough around the edges, but I certainly learned quite a bit. Thanks for your patience and your help! -- (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome.  :) Please continue to edit and make Wikipedia one of your hobbies! Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Allen West edits[edit]

Thanks for your help on Allen West's page. I do have to disagree with you though, on a couple of points. A fire support officer's designation on his DD214 is as a "FSO" or Fire Support Officer, capitalized. (See: Artillery observer) And when we were in Vicenza, Italy together we were not the 4/325 Infantry Regiment ... all paratrooper infantry regiments receive the "Airborne" designation so we were the 4/325th ABCT or "Airborne Battalion Combat Team" once our 1/509th colors were retired and the 82nd absorbed us into the Division. Even if we were using the new unit designations at the time, it would be noted as 325th PIR or "Parachute Infantry Regiment." Simply noting "Infantry Regiment" is not indicative of his Airborne status at the time when he was receiving Hazardous Duty "jump pay." But you are correct on several of the other notes ... and between you and I we upgraded the entry a great deal. I served under Allen as one of his FDC Chiefs. We were, in order, the 1/509th ABCT Geronimos, the 4/325th ABCT Geronimos, the 1/508th ABCT Geronimos and now they are the 173rd ABCT Sky Soldiers upgraded to a Brigade Combat Team rather than a Battalion Combat Team. Thank you again. I'm learning.  :) --Scrooster (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Howdy! Thanks for dropping by, I thought about leaving you a note on your Talk Page to clarify one or two things but then quickly moved on to other things. You're clearly right about the unit designations (e.g., 1/25 SBCT), but for non-military readers on Wikipedia, it's usually easier for them to understand it written out (e.g., "1st Battalion, 25th Infantry Division") with the corresponding Wikilinks to the smallest organization (in this case, 25th ID) to guide the reader to find out more. If you do a search right now for "1/25 SBCT", nothing will come up... maybe someone should create a bunch of article redirects some day, but the potential list would be exhaustive. In the alternative, you could use a pipelink to have the text in the article read "1/25 SBCT" while linking to the 25th ID if you wanted to, but again you have the problem where it's crystal clear to military folks like us and confusing to non-military readers trying to decipher it. Up to you if you want to take a stab at that and try reformatting the names to some sort of compromise in between. On the titles of positions, the convention I use is that if it's a specific position to a given unit, i.e., "he was the Executive Officer of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team", you uppercase the position, while if it's in reference to a non-specific unit, you lowercase it, i.e., "he served as an executive officer for a maintenance company". In my opinion, frequent and repetitive uppercasing doesn't look good to my eye for encyclopedic prose, and using the lowercase versions for most jobs coupled with the more prominent specific units positions standing out in uppercase just flows better. Just my two cents. Feel free to make further enhancements if you feel it would help the readability... :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. Okay, I can try to do something down the road with that and thanks for taking the time to guide me through the thought process a bit more. Much appreciated. Scrooster (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States military award devices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Flying Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AzureCitizen. You have new messages at EricSerge's talk page.
Message added 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EricSerge (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

5/16 inch star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Meritorious Service Medal
William Francis Buckley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Meritorious Service Medal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Medals and such[edit]

Howdy, stranger!
Your name just popped up on my watchlist for the first time in a long time, which reminded me that I had wanted to ask you a question. It has to do with this edit made a few months ago. The edit summary seemed logical on its face, so I didn't think too much about it, but then I started noticing the GCM being mentioned in various sources about the guy. Could all those sources be wrong? Compounding the confusion is the fact that Bowerman was in the ROTC first, then in the Reserves (which handles a GCM-equivalent somewhat differently), and was allegedly awarded the medal not long after the Army established it in the early 1940s. Is it possible the "active enlisted service" requirement was different back then, or perhaps he received a variation of the Army GCM? It's just been something I've been curious about, and I recalled seeing a flurry of chatter about medals on your Talk page a while back and figured you may have some insight on the matter. It's not something I'm losing sleep over, obviously (it's been months since that edit).

I hope all is well with you. :) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello X, good to hear from you! All is well here and I hope the same for you. I took a look at the Bowerman article to glean what I could about the situation. I think you might be on the right track in figuring that if several sources document Bowerman had an AGCM, he probably really did have one, and that there might be something present in the current article write-up that is off track. Allow me to speculate one possibility that might explain it... there are plenty of Army officers who wear or have worn the AGCM on their ribbon rack (myself included... it's because of prior active duty enlisted time before commissioning). The article currently says that Bowerman "joined the United States Army as a 2nd Lieutenant in the days following the Pearl Harbor attack." Much earlier versions of the article just said he served in the Army, and the first edit to expand the subject and introduce the Moore source is here from May 2008, which actually says he "enlisted" in the Army following the Pearl Harbor attack. Is it possible he actually enlisted first, then got commissioned later, either through applying for it or perhaps earning a battlefield commission after he entered the European Theater? As long as he served for one year before becoming an officer, he would have been eligible. The edit changing it to "2nd Lieutenant" in 1941 came later in January 2010 here. However, by ~1945, the article has him commanding a battalion as a major, which is meteoric rise in a very short span of time (but again, things like that happened during WW II with rapid promotion when officers higher in the chain of command got killed off). Have you had the chance to read the Moore book yourself, and compare what's in it to the assertions that are currently being made in the article that he was in ROTC and joined the war as a second lieutenant?  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's been a while since I've read (at least part) of that book, but the digital magic of Google-Books enables the searching and viewing of relevant passages here. Different pieces of the puzzle can be found in these sections:
Pg 56 -- But in early 1933, something happened that would delay everything. Bill had joined ROTC as a senior because he needed the money, without realizing that in return for tuition help he was committing himself to a two-year obligation. He'd have to spend a fifth year at Oregon when he'd hoped to graduate in four.
Pg 67 -- ... it would seem like no time at all until war clouds thickened. "We were in Eastern Oregon with Jon," Bowerman would recall. "On the Sunday, we were driving back to Medford and heard the Japanese had come on in and dropped the bombs on Pearl Harbor." Looking over at Barbara, Bill simply executed a U-turn. "I just drove right to Vancouver Barracks and took a physical, and went back to Medford for a month while they decided what to do with me." Because he'd been in ROTC and the Army Reserve, he was made a second lieutenant and assigned to Ft. Lawton, near Seattle. The camp was essentially a staging ground for sending troops to Alaska, where an invasion was expected. "But they classified me limited duty," Bowerman would remember with disgust. "I've got a scar on my left eye. I got it when I was a boy, ten or twelve, playing mumblety-peg. All it did was nick it. Hell, I could see like an eagle. But they gave me theatre officer, athletic officer. I was doing everything except washing the dishes."
Pg 69 -- As Barbara would describe it, "The Tenth was like an Ivy League club -- a mixture of Regular Army leaders and citizen soldiers, some from expensive colleges. Occasionally officers objected to noncoms coming in the officers' club. But some of the corporals were world-class heroes to men like Bill, who were only officers because they'd been in ROTC. Bill would host these great skiers and be frowned upon by the colonels."
Pg 81 -- One blustery day, when the pear leaves were blowing across the fields, a pair of soldiers with MP armbands hailed Bowerman at practice to say he was under arrest. "Yeah?" said Bowerman. "For what?" The MP, who was from Portland, answered, "Because you refused to obey an order to return to somewhere in Texas where your people were to reassemble to be disbanded." "You think you are going to take me back to Camp Swift," said Bill. "In the first place, I'm not going. In the second place, you are going to look pretty funny. I've got four Bronze Stars and a Good Conduct Medal. I've got a Silver Star for gallantry in action. In the third place, the war is over. I'm a schoolteacher. I'm back here teaching school. In the fourth place, if you try to take me out of here we'll have a riot and you'll get arrested, right here in my Jackson County. "Well," said the MP, "I'm going back to the Adjutant General's office." Where someone must have taken a look at Bowerman's service record, for the Army wrote that he could officially muster out at Camp Carson, in Colorado. One of Barbara's favorite photos shows him there, holding up his honorable discharge papers. His medals would arrive in the mail a couple years later.
I get the impression that normal adherance to procedure and policy at the close of that war may have, at times, taken a backseat to more ad-lib handling of matters, but I'm not sure that holds true of the issuing of medals. Other sources routinely note the GCM among his other medals (like this one). Curious.
I'm doing well; just preparing for the annual end-of-year chaos here, while tying up loose ends before the end of the world.  ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Good work on scaring up the most relevant material from the Moore biography. Based on that, I would say my theory that he enlisted in 1941 and became an officer a year after Pearl Harbor is a non-starter. I also reflected on the fact that with a birth date in early 1911, he was already 30+ years old by the time the U.S. entered the war. In all likelihood, he probably really was a lieutenant when he entered active service just a few days after December 7th. After taking another look at the three executive orders that established and amended the rules for the CGM, it doesn't look like he would have been eligible no matter how you skew it, yet numerous sources say he had a GCM and Moore's biography even anecdotally relates a confrontation between Bowerman and some MPs where Bowerman purportedly claims a Silver Star, four BSMs, and a Good Conduct Medal. So what's the real deal? At this point, I suspect either there was confusion at the time it was awarded and a mistake was made (S-1 sections don't always get it right when they publish orders), or Bowerman became confused decades later and thought he'd been awarded the GCM, which then propagated itself into the interviews that became his biography (neither scenario involving any devious intent, as Vets frequently don't always get their stories straight through the fog of many years). At this point, it's unlikely to be resolved unless someone had substantial access to records or could interview the rare surviving individuals (if there are any) who can shed light on these incongruent facts. Perhaps Kenny Moore would know more about it as well?
With regard to the end of the year chaos, I can very much appreciate that. Speaking of the end of the world phenomenon, on a segment of the Colbert Report recently, Colbert remarked that he was very confident that it was true - that December 31, 2012 is definitely going to live up to the predictions by "bringing about the end of the year".  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)



With regards to my BFA edit (, you are indeed right. Having never fired without one I completely forgot.. my bad. Thanks for re-editing it back, and sorry for what must have come across as a seemingly arrogant edit. All the best. -- (talk)

No problem, and clearly your intentions were to improve the article - it's a subtle point that other people have probably missed as well. Thanks for the courtesy... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For your work on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I was copy-editing, and when I went in to remove "He was too young to have purchased a gun anyway," it was gone. Turns out you had gotten there before I could. You have been tirelessly editing and improving this article. Great work!! :D Qbgeekjtw (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, someone else had just added a <cn> tag and it immediately struck me that the statement was faulty OR. Go team! :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


I indirectly mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:YahwehSaves_refusing_to_leave_signature. Feel free to leave a comment there is you wish.—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert Bales[edit]

I won't revert you, just want to be clear. My edit didn't label him a killer, it labeled him an alleged killer. And before he was an alleged killer, he was just another non-notable soldier without an article. Seems like the reason for notability should fill the blank in "Subject is ______", and other relevant things (like military service) should follow. But it's not a big deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and you certainly didn't do anything to abrogate the "alleged" aspect (I'm sorry if my edit summary implied that); it just seems more appropriate to say "alleged to have killed" rather than "alleged killer". With regard to his notability, I would definitely agree that he's notable because he (allegedly) committed the murders, not because he's a soldier; but the first sentence of the lede as it stands right now is unambiguous on that point. No worries... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

George Will article[edit]

No it isn't. The reference is to a different article that refers to the Will article in passing.—Chowbok 22:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's more or less the same point/content, and both of those articles were published within 24 hours of each other on October 24, 2010. The simplest solution is to move the 2nd (new) source cite to join the 1st citation in supporting the content in the 2010 section. Sound good to you? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and fixed it, you see the edit moving it here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Shorter University[edit]

Thanks for your objective work on this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JurgenSchmurgenBurgen (talkcontribs) 05:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I strive for fairness and balance. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Killing of Travis Alexander.[edit]

I left you a message on the talk page killing of Travis Alexander.--BeckiGreen (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll respond there shortly... AzureCitizen (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Victor Maghakian's Gold Star[edit]

Hello AzureCitizen,

Thank you so much on you contributions! Maghakian also won a "Gold Star in lieu of a Second Award of the Silver Star" I had added this before to the list of medals he won however, it was removed simply because it was believed that there was no "Gold Star Medal". I found a source that says he won the "Gold Star in lieu of a Second Award of the Silver Star" Is there a way we can add a ribbon for this? Is there any information on this medal? I really want to put it back on his article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Proudbolsahye, glad to help. The gold star from your reference is referring to a gold 5/16 inch star device, which is what the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps use to annotate a second award of a decoration (in this case, his 2nd Silver Star Medal). It is analogous to the use of a bronze oak leaf cluster as practiced by the U.S. Army and Air Force. When the medal is awarded for the first time, they receive the medal with its suspension ribbon, and then subsequent awards are conferred by adding 5/16 inch stars or oak leaf clusters (depending on the service branch) to show the 2nd award, 3rd award, 4th award, etc. Hence, there is no such thing as a "Gold Star Medal", but tiny 5/16 inch gold star devices that get added onto the service ribbon of the medal itself. Does that clear up the confusion? Please don't hesitate to ask more questions if you need further clarification. With regard to the article itself, we can certainly make an annotation to make it clear that Maghakian received the Silver Star Medal not once but twice. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you for your very informative response. It is all clear to me now. So basically the fact that he received a second Silver Star Medal means that he just received a Gold Star added to his ribbon. Adding a 2 next to his Silver Star would mean he basically won a Gold Star. Anyhow, there's talks that he will get a Medal of Honor. I'm pretty excited. We'll see how that goes. Once again thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem! I've gone ahead and added ribbon images to the awards section in the body of the article, along with the actual ribbon devices mounted on the ribbons. Note that a single gold 5/16 inch star on the Silver Star and Purple Heart medals indicates second awards, while a single silver 3/16 inch star on the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign medal is worn in lieu of five bronze campaign stars. I've linked those devices as well so that a reader can read up on the specifics. If they are considering him for the MOH and there are references for that, I'd go ahead and add that to the article as well. It may or may not happen, but the fact it's being discussed is noteworthy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Azure, I ran into something interesting. A source says that he "His honors included two Silver Stars, two Bronze Stars, two Purple Hearts, the Navy Cross, a Navy Unit citation, a Presidential Citation with two stars, and an Asiatic-Pacific Area Campaign Medal with seven battle stars." Turns out Navy Unit Citation and Presidential Citation are separate awards. Shouldn't they both be added separately? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Had to step away for a bit and just got back to my computer. Reading the above, it may well be that he has more medals and ribbons (possibly a second BSM, plus a NUC, plus the source says he has potentially seven APACM campaign stars and two more awards of the PUC), in which case depending on the source we can probably justify updating and adding additional awards into the article. The NUC ribbon is actually the "Navy Unit Commendation" rather than the "Navy Unit Citation", but typos and misnomers are common in records and news reports. Let me start with this: can you refer me a link to the source that gave you the above information? Or is it in a book and/or paper journal? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay it is source #11 of the article. It is from Armenian International Magazine, which is a very respectable journal/magazine edited and published by the Armenian community. I retrieved the full text of the source through the California State University of Los Angeles article database. Here's a very large and important chunk of the article:
Captain Victor "Transport" Maghakian was one of the highest decorated enlisted Marines of world War II, until he received a battlefield commission in July 1944 while serving with Carlson's Raiders in the Pacific theater. His honors included two Silver Stars, two Bronze Stars, two Purple Hearts, the Navy Cross, a Navy Unite citation, a Presidential Citation with two stars, and an Asiatic-Pacific Area Campaign Medal with seven battle stars.

During his service with the 2nd and 4th Marine Divisions and the Raiders, Maghakian fought in seven major battles and was wounded three times. He was instrumental in shooting down two Japanese aircraft, which carried intelligence that could have wrecked the American conquest of the Solomon Islands. He is also credited with saving the life of film star Lee Marvin, then a 17-year-old, during the battle for Eniwetok Atol in 1944. The wartime heroics of the Raiders were portrayed in the film Gung-Ho, and Maghakian's role was played by Sam Levene. Maghakian himself acted as technical advisor to the film, whose title came form the Raiders' battle cry. At a 1972 ceremony in his honor in Fresno, Maghakian explained what drove him: "I fought for principles and ideals, not medals." Following the war, Maghakian became an executive at a Las Vegas hotel and casino. He retired with his wife Vera to Fresno in 1974 and died three years later.

An outpatient center at the city's Veterans' Administration Medical center was named in Maghakian's honor.
I italicized something that I thought would be very useful information for the article. He shot down two Japanese fighters. But in what battle? Unfortunately I don't know. Also, I ran into trouble with his contributions to the Battle of Saipan. I cannot find any information on it. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Researching and digging up the information can be daunting when it happened six to seven decades ago. On the reference with additional information on his decorations and awards, that's a good find and would justify updating the tally. Since decorations accumulate as a person goes along, it's not surprising that one source may list one group of medals while a later source includes yet more. I will swing by the article shortly to update the ribbons and totals... AzureCitizen (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay looks great now! Thank you once again. My next article is going to be on George Juskalian. Stayed tuned! :D Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey it's no Silver Star with a Gold Medal but...[edit]

The Editor's Barnstar

Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
Heres an Editor's Barnstar for your tireless efforts and helpful contributions. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I too am interested in these types of articles and ensuring due credit to service members for the awards they've earned... AzureCitizen (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

George Juskalian[edit]

Have you seen this picture? Itll give a better view. I'm going to have to deep deep to find confirming sources for all these medals. Boy it's going to be hard. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Response at TP of my sandbox. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I appealed WP:RSN. Lets see what they say. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up... I will keep my eye on the thread.  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Update: I have very good news! I found a source that has provided all the medals Juskalian has won. Turns out you were correct in all of them. Kudos to you! I also contacted the Juskalian family and they're going to send me some pictures of George Juskalian during his military campaigns and post-military life. I am very excited for that one. Also, sorry for my delay on the article. I am waiting for these photographs to arrive so I can put the article with the photographs up for DYK. Thereafter, I'm going to try to place it for FAC. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
That's great and glad to hear it - you've done a lot of work getting the article built up and fleshing things out. I'll stop back by again sometime to check things out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The article George Juskalian is up. I put it up for DYK. I also placed you as second author of the article if you don't mind. Cheers! Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The article looks great - good work! AzureCitizen (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The proposal is fine with me. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Glad to hear it... if I can help in any other way, just let me know. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Munich massacre[edit]

Hello, I saw you undid one of my previous edits. That edit is not a vandalism and it actually does not change the nature of following parts of the text, as it can be clearly read who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. Please discuss beforeundoing. Thank you. (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this edit was not vandalism and it was previously discussed with all the people who were editing it in last couple of hours before the edit was done. As this is encyclopedic content, I do not impose any opinion or subjective content, because it is not ethical. The first sentence of that article is very clumsily written. It should be changed or the edit left. Thanks. (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused — did you mean to ask someone else? I don't remember interacting with you or with this IP before, and I've never paid attention to the Munich massacre article. Of course I'm happy to help, but unless I know better what's going on, I can't do anything. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I assumed you remembered from the other day, and realize now you may not have been following that closely. Take a look at the IP user talk page at User_talk: and you'll note that you blocked them, followed by DVdm posting below your block a few minutes later indicating this IP hopper from the 141.13* range (from Slovenia) keeps returning and getting blocked. The edit they made on the Munich massacre article is the same one they made the other day, and they again exceeded the 1RR restriction. Make sense now? Sorry I was so cursory in my prior posting. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
No, sorry; I'd completely forgotten about the block the other day. Your tone sounded as if you were in the middle of a conversation or continuing a long-running discussion (I saw the text before your signature and thought it was Platinum Star, who routinely reports IP edit-warriors to me in this manner), so that's why I wondered if you asked the wrong person. Thanks for the clarification: it reminded me quite well, and I've blocked this IP. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Ironically, after I blocked him he replaced the contents of his talk page with "Fascist Wikipedia, as always". Funny, someone attacking Jews calls us fascists! Talk page access revoked. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
That editor certainly has a perspective problem. Good to keep your sense of humor in considering the irony.  :) For the long term, it's clear they are a problem because they keep IP hopping and returning. It's frustrating for editors trying to clean up the situation because while the edits are clearly problematic, they aren't prima facie vandalism or BLP violations, and since that particular article has a 1RR restriction, regular editors stop at one repair while the IP will keep going with reverts and hop IPs again shortly. What's the solution? Range block? Semi-protection? Not sure, etc. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Semiprotection is the way to go. I'm not going to do it now, but feel free to let me know (but with context :-) if you find this guy coming back. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger that, thanks... :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure enough, it's the next day, and he's right back at it again: Special:Contributions/ AzureCitizen (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
{{Uw-ipevadeblock}} blocks levied, and page semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That'll help. Interestingly, the IP repeatedly hit the Vaginismus article with a comment on feminism, right up till April 5th, when Joe Decker took action and protected the page for ~10 days, expiring April 16th. Sure enough, on April 16th (today), the IP shows back up again to do the same thing. Something tells me that as long as he can keep jumping IPs, he'll keep up at this, and if he happens to jump to new articles that have no connection to the ones he has attacked previously, it's difficult to detect him. Prior pages edited include Nazi hunter, Simon Wiesenthal, FEMEN, Marc Lepine, Gloria Steinem, and Feminazi. There's probably no way to range block him because the range of IPs is too great. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed that this IP (like the other one) blanked his talk page after I blocked it; I think I'll include no-talk-page in future blocks if I remember. If you remember, please remind me to prevent talk page access if you come across any more IPs that this guy is using. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
As long as you can demonstrate that it's the same person, you could propose a community ban on him. Go to WP:AN and provide evidence why (1) it's the same person, and (2) he's been thoroughly disruptive across multiple IPs. Among other things, this will mean that you'll be free to exceed 1RR (and even 3RR) in reverting his edits, even when they're not 100% blatant vandalism. Nothing really can stop someone with a dynamic IP who picks vandalism topics with Special:Random. Nyttend (talk)
I just thought of an abuse filter. Filters are great for blocking people who follow patterns; if you think that there's any pattern to his vandalism, you should request a filter. I'm not familiar enough with filters to determine whether this guy's abuse is consistent enough to be blockable by a filter, but some people at WP:AN or WP:ANI will be able to determine that. Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My edit on the Travis Alexander article[edit]

Thanks for your message. You're probably right I have now reverted my last edit and am staying away from that article for the time being. Thanks!! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help as it's easy to get caught up in the moment! Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For your work on Boston Marathon bombings. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sun Yat-Sen birthplace edits[edit]

Why do you accuse me of being someone else? Is it because I think someone is being bullied and that a reasonable compromise can be reached? Curious. Sun's Hawaiian birth certificate is a legal document, and on other legal documents Sun claimed Hawaii as his place of birth. Now it does seem that the preponderance of evidence supports the views that he was actually born in China and that claims to a Hawaiian birth were motivated by expedience. But the idea is to provide the documented facts and allow the reader to decide, or am I wrong? The edit-war combatants who want to eliminate any mention of alleged Hawaiian birth from the section on birth are both rude and determined to confine any such mention to a section in which they can contextualize it so that it fits a particular interpretation of Sun's behavior. That is they draw conclusions for the regular wiki readers. But then this is what they accuse the other fella of. Near as I can tell you are operating with a double standard. You should block all parties to this dispute. Were I to use your sleuthing techniques I would say that you and the other two combatants are one in the same, an unholy trinity. Sure looks like collusion, at least. I hope wiki will die, and this little scuffle is a good example of why it should die.Gomezerella (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem like a decent person. So just a few words. I've no intention of re-entering this dispute. First, apologies for the impolite remarks. I don't like wikipedia, for reasons that have been clearly stated by others. But then of course I can just ignore it. No need to let it bother me. Just in balance I think it to be bad for the world. Still, not a justification of rudeness. And for that I apologize, to you. Second, the sockpuppet charge is just wrong. Friend, yes. Two people, also yes. I don't like being falsely accused. Third, I believe a double-standard was employed. To be fair, perhaps the others played by the rules of the game, as defined by wikipedia, but I think that might not even be accurate. In this instance the Sun birth issue had been discussed on the talk page, and while no consensus had been achieved, it has been left unchanged for a long time, until this recent group of people stepped in. By the rules of the game, they should have first addressed outstanding issues on the talk page. Fourth, my friend and I did make ample use of the talk page, but the other guys kept eliminating even that. I don't think they are capable of looking at the facts. They seem also embarrassed by the revelation that their treatment of this issue was based upon decades-old textbooks, and two other people: an anthropologist who just mentioned his thoughts on the matter in a book published by a low-level academic publishing house, and a civil servant in San Francisco who made some heavily edited comments in a pro-China publication (I guess you don't read Chinese), at the time when Sun's birthplace issue resurfaced a few years ago. Five, they repeatedly derive conclusions from facts, despite using that charge against others. Six, as a distant relative of Sun (hence my interest) it seems to be that he really was born in Hawaii (yes, the information is contradictory in places), but evidence published in reputable sources probably better supports the conclusion that he lied for purposes of expedience. What we wrote about the expedience issue is that it was not just a matter of Sun being so dedicated to China that he white-lied to save China from its enemies, internal and external. (I am of Chinese/Taiwanese ethnicity.) Seven, I would like to see the edits we made, at least to the talk page restored. But we won't restore them because wiki expects a mea culpa that requires admission of guilt for things of which we are not guilty. Again though, I do apologize for the rudeness to you. Eight, the sections relevant to Sun's birth are poorly drafted, both prose and content. Both should be re-written. Nine, a polite recommendation: rethink your dedication to wiki. Time could be better spent. My humble opinion: the rules of the game (and let's just say I choose not to play the game) are rigged, perhaps with good intentions, but in such a way that people with too much time on their hands and with ideologies to push can promote propaganda via this vehicle. This puts you in a bad position. Ten, consensus building is not a friend of truth, especially when consensus building does not require revelation of real identity and when it comes down to who has the most time to spend. Enough though of this. Good wishes to you.00:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taichi101 (talkcontribs)

Thank you for stopping by and expressing your thoughts, and apology accepted in kind with a much greater understanding of your perspective. I don't know if I can respond to every numbered point but if I may, let me add:
  • I believe you could indeed be telling the truth when you say that you and your friend are actually two different living breathing people. Although rare, this does happen in a phenomena known as meatpuppeting (check the link). Unfortunately, for Wikipedia's purposes, it's very difficult to tell the difference unless a checkuser shows the IP addresses of the two individuals resolve to locations that are far apart, and the SPI in your case revealed that the two accounts were related by technical evidence. As a result, meatpuppets get treated like sockpuppets, and Wikipedia's policy says that remedies used for one can be applied to the other. Had both of you been independent editors with established histories, rather than brand new accounts that showed up within hours of each other on the given article advocating the same changes, it probably would have been a different story.
  • If you're a distant relative of Sun, I can totally appreciate your interest and knowledge in the article. I'm a caucasion (European ancestry) living in Illinois, and know next to nothing about Sun Yat-Sen and his place in history. Maybe I'll do some reading and catch up on that...
  • If you return to the article's Talk Page and try again, I think you could make some headway in changing the article. Just stick to the facts, cite your sources, and make policy based arguments. Avoiding commenting on other editors and instead comment only on the article changes at issues. Often times, that approach will get others to see what you're driving at and come to terms with the issue; if others try to obfuscate and pursue an agenda instead, it becomes apparent to other neutral editors who are watching the subject and they'll step forward. There are always ways to bring in independent editors automatically too, by way of an RfC (Request for Comment). I can show you how to get one started if you'd like.
  • I noticed today for the first time that there is additional mention in the article itself that speaks about Sun obtaining a Hawaiian birth certificate, you can see it in this section: Heaven and earth society, overseas travel. Did you notice that too? I bring it up just in case it impacts what you're discussing.
  • On Wikipedia and spending enormous amounts of time getting sucked into things, I can't say that you're wrong. Wikipedia can and does consume large quantities of time editing, re-editing, and negotiating editing disputes. It can be very habit forming, akin to an addiction, and there are times when I tell myself I really should break away from the compulsion. Sometimes I take breaks, but I usually find my way back here one way or another when I'm interested in looking up a particular article and notice something, or see significant changes to articles I've edited previously and feel compelled to consider them. I think it's a natural human reaction really. If you've thought this through and have truly decided to never edit here again yourself, I understand.
  • If, on the other hand, you want to make another go at proposing edits on the article's discussion page, and have the time and patience to work things through, I will definitely stop back by there and try to ensure that fair discussion takes place. Regardless of who wrote the comments previously (you or your friend), if you cut-and-paste prior comments back to the page using the firstly-created account (Taichi101), there is no legitimate reason whatsoever for others to revert them now that the temporary block on the firstly-created account has expired. Up to you...
Good wishes to you as well and kind regards... AzureCitizen (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

1. No, thanks for the invitation, but I at least won't go down this path anymore.

2. I understand the reasoning process that motivated the accusation. Just want to point out that it is erroneous. Also, just as a general point, I'm not certain a policy of this sort effectively blocks serious content, when people who may only know one another through cyberspace are still able to effectively bully someone. In saying this, as before, I do agree that a cooler attitude on my part might have helped. Even if not though, civility is important.

3. As for the mention of Sun's birth certificate, as I recall that was there before. That was what the one person was emphasizing. What bothered me is that contextualizing it in that way is a means of drawing a conclusion that the "birth issue" has nothing to do with where he was born. Placed there it better fits the expedience narrative. Unfortunately the Sun birth controversy coincided with the Obama birth controversy, and the two became conflated, such that Hawaii was regarded as generally playing fast and loose with the issuance of these. My views: in Obama's case it was ludicrous. In Sun's case, it is a contentious issue, that at least merits mention.

4. Let me try to provide a broader context here--just my views, based upon facts, but my views. Sun's status in the China-Taiwan dispute is that of a unifying figure, since officially he is regarded as playing an important role in the founding of both countries. I'm greatly simplifying here, but among those of us who hate the fact that Taiwan is the only democratic country on earth that goes unrecognized by the UN and by most influential countries, being lumped with China--in any sense--is unpleasant. Sun has nothing to do with Taiwan, since Taiwan was a colony of Japan when the Qing Dynasty was overthrown in China in 1911. Even Sun's involvement in that is a contentious issue, but you know how these things go with national/political symbols. To get to the nut of the issue, Taiwan is already being absorbed by China, and every means possible is being employed to justify this, as well as justify the threat of force to occupy Taiwan. The Sun birth issue is minor, just a part of the narrative that emphasizes his "Chinese-ness." The issue here has more to do with corrupt ideas about racial purity, which are always reprehensible. One reason why I won't jump back in to this business is that there are simply too many people with time and agendas--they'll wear you out, unless you decide to take a stand on this issue and devote all your time and energy to it. This issue isn't worth the effort. As for those that bear more directly on the attempts to occupy Taiwan, wikipedia provides a forum for the One-China people to rationalize what they do. This is related to my unkind observations about wiki--too many people take it is a reliable reference, and (please forgive me for saying this) it is not.

As above, best wishes to you.Taichi101 (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Camp Liberty killings may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave my operator a message on his talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion[edit]

Nice Cup of Tea.jpg

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

George Juskalian again[edit]

There's a dispute at Talk:George Juskalian on whether or not a local newspaper is a reliable source for the claim that Juskalian's awards are "among the rarest bestowed on United States service members". You've been involved with the article in the past; could you please take a look? Huon (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. You may have seen my prior comments on the article's Talk Page regarding "rarest" and "highest". In the interests of long term article stability, I'm wondering if the editor who keeps changing the text would agree to retaining a stabilized version if there is a compromise on the key word "rarest", given arguments like this have a habit of popping up again and again with other new editors. I'm going to try talking with him first, and seeing where things lead. In any event, thanks for your support at the article too, I appreciate that you've been trying to stop the edit warring. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun control article[edit]

Just wanted to note that even though I reverted you (as being pre-mature with it under discussion) I think that you probably have the best idea of the "reasonable middle" on this. Unfortunately the reality is that going to the "reasonable middle" at the beginning of the process is a recipe for ending up at an unreasonable place. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate the difficulties of trying to find common ground when positions are drawn and stakes escalated, and took no offense to the revert. For me, I'm not invested in the article much and am not overly concerned with the outcome; my goal has been to help break the deadlock and indeed get the subsection to a state closer to the middle ground, where maybe folks can reach a compromise. If not, at least the divide will be lessened.  :) AzureCitizen (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Cool! North8000 (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Harry Kizirian[edit]

Thank you once again for your updates. I will contact the Kizirian family for some photographs of this man. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Turns out he has a Bronze Star with a Gold "V" that a very different medal? Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent 'Good Faith' Undo[edit]

Hello, AzureCitizen. :) rJay here. This is regarding the revision you undid on the talk page of American POWs in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I did some extensive research on your claim, and you are correct. However, for future reference, you should use the following page(s): I found this to be more explanatory, and on-topic. The page you referred me to ( ) is about the actual article code of conduct, and is off-topic. It only referenced talk pages to tell noobs about the talk page feature, but not to argue, or forumize the talk page. It was slightly confusing for a moment. Thanks for understanding, and for your time. rJay (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by rJay, and for expressing your consensus. In pointing out what you're saying above, are you talking about the fact that (otherwise known as WP:TPNO) says at the bottom of it's list of unacceptable behaviors, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic"? AzureCitizen (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed I was. :) As that is, after all, the page of dos and don'ts regarding talk pages, rather than a quick reference to talk pages on a page about articles. Minute, I know, however, had this been someone less knowledgeable than myself (not elevating myself to a level on which I am not), they may have been confused to a greater degree than I. rJay (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC
By any chance, did you happen to notice that the text "Do not use the talk page as a forum" is actually a wikilink, and that if you click on it, it goes directly to (otherwise known as WP:NOTFORUM)? And then read #4 at that linked location?  :) AzureCitizen (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for George Juskalian[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Killing of Travis Alexander[edit]

Hello. I assume that you noticed that the title of this article was changed a day or two ago, from "Killing of" to "Murder of". If not, I wanted to make you aware. Also, I am closing out the thread of our discussion on my Talk Page. Let me know if you have any questions or want to follow up with me. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Kizirian[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sue Sarafian Jehl[edit]

Hello AzureCitizen, how have you been?

I found another gem and her names Sue Sarafian Jehl. She's in my sandbox. Her decorations need a little bit of touching up. I would love if you can help out. I ran into something that I don't know how to express. Under her presidential unit citation it says, "(SHAEF) Supreme Headquares, Allied Expeditionary Force" I bet those are her unit names. However, how would I be able to express that on the decorations section? I hate to bug you like this all the time Azure but our articles have become a big success for good reasons! Cheers! Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm good, things are going well.  :) I've sorted out the decorations and will post on the Talk Page in just a minute regarding SHAEF... AzureCitizen (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Azure. I posted the article up. Everything looks good. I'll send it to DYK soon. Regards! Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Xenophrenic RfC/U[edit]

I noticed that you had some interaction with User:Xenophrenic on the David Stannard article and Talk page, and other articles. I've started an RfC/U regarding Xenophrenic's editing habits. Please feel free to participate if you have anything to add about your experiences.

regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

John Kizirian[edit]

Hello Azure,

I hope all is well. I stumbled upon Kizirian. What I found interesting is that he was awarded WW2 Victory Medal when he wasn't sent to the front at all. However, he did serve during the time of the war in San Diego. Should I mention that he served in WW2? I personally believe he should since he received a medal for it. What do you think? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Am doing well and hope the same for you. I read the source citation that mention John Kizirian received 66 decorations and awards during his career - that's a lot! I'll respond on the article's talk page regarding the above... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Dining Out redirect[edit]

A couple years ago, you created a redirect from "Dining Out" to Dining in. These are two different, although similar things. The Dining In article doesn't reflect this and really a better compromise solution could have been found. Was there any discussion before you made this redirect? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Chris. I've been to a number of dining in's and dining out's over several decades of service so I am familiar with the differences (and have played the role of Mr. Vice when I was a junior officer). I don't recall any discussion back in April 2010; I made the redirect because the dining out article was a stub with no references and the essential concept was already contained (with bolding) in the lede of the dining in article: "An optional formal dinner, known as the dining-out may include spouses and other guests. The dining-out follows the same basic rules of the dining-in, but is often tailored to minimize some of the military traditions and be more interesting to civilian guests." I don't think it's really worthwhile to have a separate stub when the overall umbrella concept for dining in's, dining out's, mess nights, regimental dinners, etc., is well covered in the existing article. Do you think it would be worth building a fully fleshed out dining out article (with references) in this situation? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I agree with the concept that they should all be consolidated into one article. I would suggest that perhaps a more general article title like "military balls and dining functions" could have been used instead. While the sentence in the lead section helps specify that the dining out is similar, I think it connotes all these events as being a dining-in. I guess if there was no discussion for a redirect then no alternatives were considered. I can start a discussion on a name change and rectify the problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, a more general article title might help facilitate that and then redirects could be arranged to point all the specific titles (like dining in, dining out, etc.) to that article. I'm actually overseas right now and just happened to get online today to take care of some things, so I may not participate till later. All good... AzureCitizen (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Tammy Duckworth RfC[edit]

Just letting you know that I initiated an RfC regarding Duckworth's DOB: Talk:Tammy_Duckworth#RfC_on_providing_full_date_of_birth. Cheers, Edge3 (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy article[edit]

Do you think "he slept with a gun under his pillow" in his introduction is necessary? The same wording is repeated in his Post-war trauma section. It implies he slept with the gun lifelong otherwise it wouldn't be in the introduction. Gun talk like this in the introduction may lead some vets with PTSD to put guns under their pillows since Murphy did. I got ________ in the Talk section over this gun issue, maybe you have something to say, if you can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talkcontribs) 07:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello YahwehSaves... I've been travelling for the last week so I didn't have time to respond to your post until now. With regard to whether or not the lead should contain the item on the gun/pillow/PTSD, it appears from the Talk section that this is a matter of some longstanding disagreement and removing it is opposed. If I may suggest, I think your best course of action would be to start an WP:RfC on the article talk page and see if others have a different opinion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AzureCitizen. You have new messages at Aoidh's talk page.
Message added 14:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 14:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Pvt Manning article[edit]

I noticed your helpful clarification. Would it be clearer if the article said "... sentenced to 35 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge upon release"? -- (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Understandably, there is much confusion over when the dishonorable discharge will take place. It will most likely happen within three to six months after all appeals are finalized. When a Soldier is sentenced to prison and a punitive discharge, the execution of the discharge is temporarily stayed pending an automatic appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) where the dishonorable discharge will be reviewed along with the prison term. Hypothetically, that decision could then be appealed under discretionary review to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). During this process, however, the soldier will remain a Private/E-1 incarcerated at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth and will be what AR 190-47 Chapter 3-1 calls a "sentenced prisoner". Later, after review of the dishonorable discharge is complete by the ACCA (and the CAAF, potentially), the dishonorable discharge will be ordered to be executed by the General Court Martial Convening Authority exercising jurisdiction over the soldier. At that time, instead of being an incarcerated Private/E-1, the prisoner will become a discharged former soldier who continues to be incarcerated at a military prison as an inmate until completion of the sentence. So... to sum things up, Manning is still a soldier, and will continue to be so for some time while incarcerated, but will most likely be dishonorably discharged before the prison term is complete. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

High Point University Edits[edit]

On review, I agree that text citing the Huffington Post should be removed. However the section that remains covers the Businessweek article and isnt descriptively headed by the lable "Amenities." The article cited raises a broad range of issues, including questions on financing, impropriety in contracts with vendors and administrator salaries, and questionable academics, not just "amenities." Needs a broader heading. If you object to "criticism" how about "challenges in the press?"--KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on your Talk Page - you'll find my comments there. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I beleive changing the title to "Amenities " and moving the section to the bottom of the article obscures the issue, and it would be better left in current position with a neutral but descriptive heading. Thanks for looking at it. KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dana Loesch[edit]

Gaba has not addressed the weight issue at all. I waited some time for a valid reason for why these events are significant to her career in the larger sense and their continued response is "These are RS". While I don't want to edit war it doesn't appear that Gaba actually wants to discuss the weight aspect. You would have to agree that her feud with Morgan is nothing at all, especially now that he no longer even has that show. The Akin stuff is equally meritless. Arzel (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arzel. I agree the stuff is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, not very significant, etc. I tried to word the entries themselves to be as neutral-POV and fact-oriented as possible (they were originally slanted against Loesch). What I care about most is ensuring that the text isn't written in a disparaging tone as it's a BLP. With regard to WP:WEIGHT, my understanding of weight is that it matters when we're talking about competing perspectives on what the mainstream and non-mainstream views of something are. For example, in a discussion on whether or not the Earth is round or flat, appropriate weight needs to be given to the views. With regard to Loesch, what happened with Akin and with Piers Morgan isn't really about weight. These events just happened to occur in the course of the subject's career, and they are just trivial in that sense (keep them in or drop them, no big deal) rather than being a WP:WEIGHT problem mandating their removal. If I may say, I sense that one of the conflicts going on here is that one of you may be somewhat anti-Loesch's politics, and the other positive-Loesch politics, and that the real argument devolves down to a sense of whether or not these items are seen as a positive or a negative when viewing the subject. Assuming I'm correct, I'm not quite sure what we can do about that to make everyone satisfied with the content. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't call myself pro-Loesch. I would call myself anti-BLP attacking. I appreciate your attempt to remove the NPOV and BLP issues, but what is left is meaningless as the whole context for their original inclusion was to attack Loesch. The Morgan part is particularly worthless. There is no long term historical value, it doesn't even go into why it was an issue because it would have been undue weight. The Akin stuff is equally meaningless. No one seems to care about that twitter other than the left which was in the middle of trying to destroy Akin at the time to the point that anyone that said anything that could be remotely viewed as defending Akin was to be attacked as well. WP has enough partisan bitching on BLP articles, they should be reserved for truly significant issues. Loading up articles with insignificant "apparently negative" trivia quickly reaches a point where it is clear that the point of the BLP is to attack the subject. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 01:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

yeah I know you were trying to help[edit]

but it's fine for that editor to revert/delete/walk over my work, correct?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Whenever an editor makes good faith efforts to improve an article (in this case, more than two dozen individual edits), and you find that you disagree with some of the material, it would be better to re-edit the specific material you disagree with rather than mass-revert everything. If same situation were to happen with something you'd worked on, I would gladly return the courtesy. Make sense now? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation[edit]

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I will give some thought to participating again there. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Article help[edit]

I think your input is needed at the General Barrow site and Chesty Puller site. The main problem is the retroactive Combat Action Ribbon. The demand is for a written source. My view is not every sentence in an article requires a source so how can every military ribbon require a source when you know the guy(s) qualifies for it from other given sources. The WW2 Campaign Medal and Victory Medal for example, if you know the guy was in WWII (and has combat decorations in article) but their is no source verifying those awards in the article that he was awarded those (like so many because he was out of the service and didn't get some awards), is the article not supposed to allow those (in this case 2 CARs for Barrow and Puller, WWII and Korea) because he maybe didn't apply to get those? YahwehSaves (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the thread that I think you're referring to, currently seen here I believe. I can appreciate that you're striving to get it "right" and awards/decorations/devices on biographies of late persons present peculiar problems like this because we often don't have the proper sourcing to go off of, yet we have a pretty good hunch that something should or shouldn't be based off of experience and deduction. Unfortunately, when there is a conflict over one of those questions, the rules of Wikipedia support the position that without sourcing, challenged content is to be removed. In those cases, whether or not something is truly correct loses out to whether or not it is truly verifiable. It can be an unsatisfying result, but at the end of the day it's necessary for the Encyclopedia's stability and legitimacy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Hello AzureCitizen,

Long time no hearing from you. It's Proudbolsahye. I forgot to mention to you that I changed my username. I'm still very much appreciative of the work you have helped me with when it came to the various articles I have worked on with you. Anyhow, just wanted to stop by and say hello. Happy editing! Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Étienne Dolet! I didn't realize you'd undergone a name change, but I'll remember that going forward. Glad I was able to help with those articles and I find that work enjoyable.  :) I would have responded to your comment sooner but I've been away on service duties and only recently returned home. Take care, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Opposing Criticism section name[edit]

Please note that you have been provided with a direct Wikipedia guideline that says that there are some circumstances for which it is OK to have a criticism section spelled out. You have to specify exacly why you think that the guideline does not apply. You cannot just express opposition, which is all that you've done so far. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Just got back from dinner, hence the delay in responding (although I don't think I'll be on Wikipedia too much more for tonight). If you want to precise and specify things exactly, you should take note that WP:CSECTION isn't actually even a guideline, it's just an essay. However, even if WP:CSECTION was a guideline (or going even further, an actual policy), the overall WP:CSECTION is stressing that we should generally avoid creating sections focused on criticisms, and the sentence you have quoted on says "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title..." (bolded for emphasis). Thus, it's up to editors and local consensus to weigh that aspect and decide whether or not creating a criticism section is appropriate. I've invited others to join in (and suggested you employ WP:THIRD or RfC if they do not) because I suspect our current 1:1 disagreement will quickly clear up if other editors think creating a criticism section is a good idea (or a bad one). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Since you brought up the fact that WP:CSECTION is not policy (something that I didn't), you are losing ground on deleting the section heading, as there are no policy guidelines saying that "criticism" headings are forbidden. Note that in order to delete content, you have to show that keeping the content in question is a violation of wikipedia policy, so by saying that WP:CSECTION is not policy, you are weakening your argument. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
We're talking about an editorial decision on whether or not to create a section header here (a bit of stretch to call it "content", as if it were sentences or paragraphs of reliably sourced and relevant content material that I was deleting)... nonetheless, I must disagree with your claim that I have to show keeping the content in question is a violation of Wikipedia policy. We use editorial discretion all the time on whether or not we think should something should be included or not included; if one editor adds something and another disagrees with it and removes it, there is no requirement that the editor who removes it to prove that it violated a Wikipedia policy. Perhaps you'd like to show me a policy that says otherwise? AzureCitizen (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to emphasize again that you cannot use the fact that the essay says "may" to block the section heading. I made the claim that the requirements for the section heading have been satisfied, so you have to make an argument why my claims do not conform to the essay. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're simply incorrect on that point. I will continue to exercise my editorial judgment that we do not need to create a criticism section in the article; if you think I am somehow violating a policy in this regard, please feel free to refer me to it and/or take this issue up on the appropriate noticeboard. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Joel Fuhrman, MD[edit]

Thank you for your oversight in the Joel Fuhrman article. There seems to be fairly little investment in countering some of the scurrilous namecalling. I think that the article needs a team of writers who would adopt the article and dramatically improve it. MaynardClark (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for such an untimely reply, I've had very little spare time to devote to Wikipedia for the last few weeks. While I certainly don't espouse the views of the subject myself, I think there has been a tendency for some editors to push for including negative material, which speaks more to their own POV rather than building a quality BLP. BLPs are supposed to be written conservatively and err on the side of caution, hence anything involving namecalling and labeling should be screened out if possible. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Unclosed conversation[edit]

You closed without comment a conversation in which you were not involved. Dunno your reasoning but I've reverted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It was obvious that the thread was deteriorating into pointless bickering and personal attacks; as an uninvolved editor, summarily closing it was an attempt to get the participants to let it go. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Help on a breakout?[edit]

I see you also are interested in the Walsh case. I think it's fascinating case but it's impossible to tell the whole story inside the Walsh BLP. Clearly, I would include more there than others, but at best it's only a question of where to draw the line. Writing within a BLP, there is always going to be a balance issue. But in a breakout article, where the subject is the clearly notable topic of the "John Walsh plagiarism scandal", the whole thing can be about just that topic. New article, new rules on balance, it appears to me. We could write more freely about the timeline of what happened, the NYT evidence, initial responses, effect on the campaign and the protocols at the War College, etc. At that point, I'd happily support still more trimming in John Walsh. (To me, John Walsh the person isn't at all interesting. How the plagiarism incident played out is.) I think there's an interesting story here, loads of fabulous sources, and an article that can be written within the guidelines. Since creating a breakout would obviously make certain people very unhappy, I've posted some additional thoughts and sought advice at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#John Walsh (U.S. politician) plagiarism scandal. Perhaps you would care to comment. Better still, what I'm really hoping is that you might also be interested to help create the article. Msnicki (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Msnicki: I clarified this a couple of times before but you might have missed it. WP:BLP applies to all articles, breakout or not so your assumption that different rules would somehow apply is faulty. Also as mentioned elsewhere given the consensus on the talk page against splitting the article, the creation of the article anyways would be disruptive - you should be engaging with the half-dozen other editors involved there, not circumventing them. Please note that I am not necessarily opposed to expanded coverage of the plagiarism scandal in the main article; I just oppose addition of the material in article space while it is still under discussion per BLP's requirement for caution. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
And as I said to you at WP:NPOVN, I have heard your opinion, which is exactly why I've been seeking advice. Msnicki (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The applicability of BLP is not an opinion; it is expressly stated in the policy. Why did you state that it would not apply if you had already seen my clarification? VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion that your interpretation is correct. But my opinion is different and I'm entitled to mine as well. I think it should be possible to write a compliant breakout article on the topic but I know that would make you and others very unhappy, so I'm seeking advice before I decide what to do. If you have additional arguments, perhaps you might present them at the NPOVN discussion for broader consideration. Msnicki (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello folks... I got back online a little while ago and saw the above, and tried to read up on all the posts regarding the breakout article issue. I can see that it's fairly contentious right now and people have strong opinions about this. I don't know what the outcome of an RfD would be, or if the material is well suited to creating a comprehensive and worthwhile encyclopedia article. I don't particularly want to get dragged into the fray, and often don't have time to edit Wikipedia extensively (this morning was an exception), but I would offer this piece of advice (if advise is being sought): you may want to consider creating the article in sandbox space rather than starting it out in main space where apparently it will trigger a lot of controversy. Then you can build it up into something more developed, with potential input from editors both in favor of and against it, that can transitioned to main space with a lot less acrimony after people see it fleshed out first. Would that resolve everyone's concerns and provide a path forward in figuring out whether or not a breakout article is the right choice? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You read my mind. :) What I'm trying to do now is figure out the exact boundaries of what can be written and how such that a breakout would not violate our guidelines. Once I think I have a good handle on that, I'm expecting I would start with a draft of my proposed article in my own user space and invite others to provide feedback before moving it into article space. As you observe, this is a contentious topic so I'm anxious to figure out where I'm solid ground and where, not so much. Msnicki (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the correct location to have the discussion is the article talk page. The non-process skirting way to handle this is as a WP:SPLIT, because the content needs to be due in the main article for it to be due in a daughter article. If Msnicki feels that the viewpoints on the article talk page are not diverse enough, dispute resolution methods such as WP:DRN or a request for comment are the path forward. Thanks for your work on the article, BTW. VQuakr (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Msnicki: I just do not see how you feel that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts." can be characterized as an opinion or interpretation. That is a direct quote from Wikipedia policy. VQuakr (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Pat Quinn[edit]

I understand your PoV at Pat Quinn's infobox. However, it's been the practice for years, to include the elected or designated successor-to-be, in the infobox, while keeping out the lame-duck's departure date. Note that this is currently done for Sheila Simon, aswell as the other outgoing governors & lieutenant governors infoboxes. Recommend you take you concerns to a wider audience, via the appropiate WikiProject, as you shouldn't be singling out Pat Quinn. :) GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll[edit]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Afghan War order of battle[edit]

Thanks for your revert on my change yesterday. If the article is currently reduced to a redirect, yes of course it shouldn't go there. You may be aware that Iraq War order of battle was retitled Iraq War order of battle 2009 some years ago. If the Afghan War OOB article is no longer properly up to date, I will in the same fashion put the best-date-possible on the Afghan War OOB article and resurrect it: it's of historical value, not just of value during the period of the war in which NATO & U.S. admitted they were engaged in direct combat. Happy holidays Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot. Sounds like good idea - I hate to see information like that being lost as well. By turning it into a historical article, it can still be preserved without having a "not up to date" problem. Thanks for stopping by to explain what's going on... :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Enquiring after the convictions of another editor?[edit]

This enquiry, [8] appears somewhat inappropriate to me, what matters is the neutrality, encyclopaedic character, and accuracy of an edit. However your statement does not accurately characterise my convictions at all. Cpsoper (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality, encyclopedic character, and accuracy of edits is the overriding concern of all edits in actual article space. On Talk Pages, however, editors engage in discourse to get an understanding of the positions being raised, and their clarity is sometimes obscured. Your "convictions" are not an issue here, but the point you're trying to make is worth trying to understand, and you began your response with "Thanks, on the contrary, it shows...", leading me to believe you're trying to say that Ham is correct in his claim that science is actually being taught as a religion in public schools. If that is not what you're saying, I would think it would be simple to reply there saying "That is not what I'm saying," but by all means feel free to drop the issue and make no response if that is what you desire. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Forward, Together Forward[edit]

"Forward, Together Forward" is the Official University Motto.

LTLT is/was some optional add-on tag slogan to the logo redesign back in 2011. YFOF may be the new LTLT but neither is the Official University Motto. That remains "Forward, Together Forward."

"Forward, Together Forward" appears on Memorials to the victims of the 2008 incident because it is the University's motto not the other way around. The scholarships set up in honor of the victims also takes its name from the Official University Motto (FTF) as do many other tributes, sayings, nicknames, etc.

The Official Motto for Northern Illinois University is "Forward, Together Forward." Please undo your change, thank you.

Also, that user made another incorrect change. The University's official colors are cardinal (red) and black, which he/she would have known if they had bothered to check the footnote prior to making the (wrong) change. There is also this: "Note to graphic artists and printers: The NIU CARDINAL red is Pantone Matching System 1935." I corrected the change to the "Colors" section and referenced the link above in the new footnote, as it is much clearer. --ForwardNIU (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, your interest in collaborating and contributing here is appreciated. I will transclude your remarks to the article's talk page, where the conversation and efforts to improve the article can continue. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter Ruckman Talk Page[edit]

It seemed appropriate to delete the material as it was already determined to be BLP violations and the BLP investigation reviewer thought you did a good job on the article edits. It seemed to violate BLP which I believe takes precedence over Talk page guidelines but I have no intent of trying to take it out again as it was a pain with the filter and my IP because of my defiance to register. It is your call but I believe it will only lead to greater problems in the future. It also makes no sense to post material on a talk page that clearly violates WP:BLP. BLP is something that has a high level of oversight and immediate deletions are recommended upon finding violating material. Thanks for the notice. (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and sentiments. I have inserted a hide-text bar so that the quotes are not readily visible when a reader visits the page unless they click the <show> button. Does that help? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It definitely helped the page layout so comments below it were not in such a small font. I am trying to get through to John as he has much to add if done according to guidelines. (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks like things have settled down now. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL intrastate[edit]

Hi, AzureCitizen. You are welcome to edit the GSL article, however, in your edit summary you stated intrastate is "OK" to add into the article, except, the cites you added don't mention GSL. I did not revert your edit, as you did not add "intrastate" to the article, but feel free to discuss it with us on the talk page. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Darknipples. In case there's confusion going on here, my edit summary said "Added federal law regarding unlicensed persons selling firearms to other unlicensed persons, i.e., intrastate=okay, interstate=prohibited." What the "i.e., intrastate=okay..." meant was that with regard to federal law, intrastate was permitted and interstate was prohibited; I wasn't expressing any opinions beyond that. I did see that there has been a lot of debate on the Talk Page about what the scope of GSL is. Perhaps an RfC would be a good way to bring in the community to help figure out what that should be. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Your comments typically have this quality to them, and there's certainly no shortage of that on WP. Well deserved. Darknipples (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


May I ask you to copy edit this article? I appreciate your kindness.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I will certainly try to copy edit it sometime when I can concentrate on it. Lately I've been travelling a lot and haven't had time to do much Wiki-editing; upon my return, I will take a shot at it. Take care, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


Re: this edit, I'm fine with it but we have two conflicting NYT sources: as you say "gadfly" says he was asked to leave, the other says he was forced to choose. The text in your edit maintains that contradiction: "he was asked to leave" and "he chose activism." I don't think it's significant enough to start a section on the talk page but I wanted to explain my reasoning and convey my non-objection. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the sources are conflicting. O'Keefe was asked to leave because of the problem his continued activism would cause to the institute's non-profit status; when that happened, he faced a choice. If he had told them "wait, okay, I will give up the activism", it would have become a non-issue and he could have stayed. O'Keefe decided to stick with the activism, however, so he had to honor their request that he leave. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"V" Device ("V" device)[edit]

AC, would like to know where do you get that the "V" is currently authorized for the suspension ribbon "or" service ribbon of a medal as you have in the introduction and if the article title was "V" Device for years why is it "V" device now (or am I asking the wrong person which means perhaps I'm not supposed to be asking these questions)? YahwehSaves (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

With regard to being worn on the suspension ribbon or the service ribbon of a medal, when a service member wears their uniform, they are either wearing the usual ribbon rack or they are wearing all their full medals with suspension ribbons. They would never wear both at the same time, i.e., the usual ribbons and the full medals simultaneously. Thus, in a manner of ordinary phrasing when referring to a member wearing an award with a "V", they wear the "V" on the suspension ribbon or its corresponding service ribbon. Does that make sense to you now? Perhaps you were interpreting it differently?
With regard to case, upper versus lower, for the "d" in device in the article title, the Department of Defense usually refers to devices with a lower-case d because it's not a proper noun. See this volume for example. It's replete with instances of referring to devices like the "V" device and others with a lower-case d. It's also true that in some spots within the document, they uppercase the d, usually when listing it in a heading or a list of items where they have capitalized everything else too; this is probably due to their formatting rules for when they write manuals. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has its own guidance and policy about article titles, and in situations where something is not a proper noun, the rules say that you capitalize the first letter of the first word in the title, but lower case the words that follows. I realize this is inconsistent with the other articles on Wikipedia right now about US Armed Forces devices, such as the "M" device, "A" device, etc. The correct answer is probably that they should all be synchronized and titled the same way, i.e., all uppercase or all lowercase starting letter for the word "device". A good way to resolve that would be to start a conversation at the Article titles talk page, and ask for community guidance as to whether or not the letter d in the word device should be upper case or lower case when used in article titles as a matter of policy. Sound good?
Lastly, with regard to using parenthesis in article text, I know you frequently add your thoughts that way to article content. When you do that, try using this trick before you hit the "save" button: Re-read the portion of text where you have just added some parenthesis, and re-think how the text you just edited has been worded. If you parse through it carefully, you will usually figure out that there is another way to rephrase the sentence or add more material with additional sentences such that using parenthesis isn't necessary. Hope that helps. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we both know the DoD has been making mistakes with their awards manuals, for example, they had the Navy PUC with authorized 5/16" stars instead of 3/16" stars, FMF Combat Operations Insignia instead of FMF Combat Operation Insignia, and a Medal of Honor with a "V" Device which I doubt the naval services ever officially accepted and maybe the USAF did not accept that either, ever see proof that it was accepted? If you recall, a recent DoD manual referred to devices as "service devices". Now, they dropped that.
It appears you're saying that since the DoD has made typos and mistakes, the fact that they keep using lowercase d is just an accident, and that it's a really a proper noun which should be capitalized throughout. I don't really think that's the case (no pun intended), but maybe you could convince others of that. Have you given thought to going to the Article Names talk page (linked above) and starting a community question on the matter? At least that would bring in others including Wikipedia editors who are better experts at that sort of thing.
Reply to your 3 paragraphs above:
1) I see what you are saying now. I guess you did not understand what what I was saying. As is, your sentence is not right, "corresponding", and two "thats". The service ribbon is part of the award/medal and one "that" is enough. The military considers the service ribbon to be a portion of the suspension ribbon of the medal.
You have - A "V" device is a metal 14-inch (6.4 mm) capital letter "V" with serifs, worn on the suspension ribbon of a medal or its corresponding service ribbon, that denotes that the medal was awarded by the United States Armed Forces for valor in combat.
The "V" Device is a metal 14-inch (6.4 mm) capital letter "V" with serifs, that if authorized, may be worn on the suspension and service ribbon of certain United States military medals to denote an award for valor in combat was received.
If you don't like the two "thats", or the word "corresponding", we can easily remove those. I didn't like your use of the phrase "that if authorized", either. As the article has been moved to "V device" now as opposed to "V Device", we should probably stick with "V device" until the page is moved back, which probably won't happen unless the matter is taken up on the Article Titles talk page. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Further comment regarding the use of "and" versus "or": Your point is that you can wear the "V" on both the suspension ribbon and the service ribbon, which is why you are phrasing it as "and". My point is that a service member would never wear the medal with suspension ribbon plus the service ribbon at the same time, hence why I keep phrasing it as "or". Are you aware of any other military award articles on Wikipedia that would help illustrate how it has been phrased elsewhere? AzureCitizen (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
2) Now DoD is going from V Devise to V device? Maybe there are other kinds of "V" devices in machine shops or something? You're the person that named this article "V" Device, maybe you should stick with that for now? The other military letter device articles have "The "M" Device. The "A" Device... isn't it better to be consistent for the time being?
Those pages are still article-titled "M Device", "A Device", etc. They should remain "The" instead of "A" until (if it ever happens) the inconsistency gets sorted out with regard to article. Meanwhile, the "V" device article has been moved to "V device" with a lowercase d. In keeping with Wikipedia style, that means the first sentence of the lede should say "V device", not "V Device". For comparison, look at other article tiles that start with a capital letter but then have lowercase letters. Here's one: Symmetry in biology. Here's another: Frame bundle. Can you show me examples where an article title has lowercase letters in the title, but uppercase letters in the opening of the lede? AzureCitizen (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
3) I think parenthesis are useful sometimes, maybe even in the infobox too.
Unfortunately, they aren't in keeping with Wikipedia's style. If you write something at first using parenthesis, just go back over the thought you're having and try re-writing it without the parenthesis. Are you aware of any other articles on Wikipedia where text prose contains parenthesis? AzureCitizen (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Further comments: I think its better or useful to have something in the infobox for First award, rather than have nothing there. Say, "1946, or 1947", you agree? It seems very doubtful any V's were made and issued in 1945, if they just decided on a V device in Dec. 1945 (have a 12/13 date for decision) and if the Vs had to be applied for. Those in service in 1946, may have gotten the V's first for WWII service is my guess, that is if the V was available in 1946. Far as consistency, place the all the ribbons examples in the article in order like the Joint Service CM ribbons - far left side. Does not look right as is. YahwehSaves (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the infobox first award parameter is that we simply don't know when it was first awarded, hence we're stuck speculating, which is not encyclopedic. That's okay. When something isn't known, the right answer is to just leave that text parameter field blank, so that it doesn't show up on the active page. It doesn't really detract from the article that it's known, does it?
With regard to the ribbon box examples, I will move them back so that the ribbon images are flush-aligned to the left side again. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason I did not agree with the "or" use is because I've seen manuals use "and", not "or". Unless you have seen it somewhere with "or"? Also, its usually written as "suspension and service ribbon" of a medal. As it is written now, you make it sound like any medal can have a "V", don't you? The medals the V applies to seem to be all dual-purpose medals. That's why I put "certain medals", but its actually certain decorations or certain combat decorations. The V does mean, stand for, or represent "valor", so it denotes valor does it not?. When worn on a dual-purpose decoration, the "V" denotes the decoration which was awarded for heroism in combat, was awarded for valor. The article is about the V device, not a service member wearing a medal or service ribbon which has a V.

You have: A "V" device is a metal 14-inch (6.4 mm) capital letter "V" with serifs, worn on the suspension ribbon of a medal or its service ribbon, denoting the medal was awarded by the United States Armed Forces for valor in combat.

A "V" device is a metal 14-inch (6.4 mm) capital letter "V" with serifs. The device is used as a ribbon attachment to denote valor on certain United States military decorations awarded for heroism in combat. The "V" is worn on the suspension and service ribbon of the medal. YahwehSaves (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Been gone on orders without access to the Internet. I've simplified it again to be very succinct and direct:
"A "V" device is a metal 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm) capital letter "V" with serifs which denotes a medal was awarded by the United States Armed Forces for valor in combat".
This makes it very simple and clear to the reader what the "V" is for, without getting in the more nuanced details which follow in the second paragraph. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Its simply not clear enough since the V device involves multi-purpose medals only. Again, you make it look like any medal awarded for valor can have a "V"; the Silver Star is awarded for "gallantry in action"; the Bronze Star which was intended for minor acts of heroism can be awarded for "heroic achievement or service". Only certain medals that are awarded either for heroism or meritorious service like the BSM ... are authorized the "V" device; the valor device is used on some lower ranking decorations.
A "V" device is a metal 14-inch (6.4 mm) capital letter "V" with serifs, which is is used as a ribbon attachment on United States military multi-purpose decorations to denote an award for heroism (valor) in combat. YahwehSaves (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Due to our experience, we're aware of the differences between the Silver Star, the Bronze Star Medal, and other medals with regard to the "V" device (be it with one, or without one). For the typical uninformed Wikipedia reader, this can be confusing. Your edit that the device denotes valor "on multi-purpose decorations" does not actually explain or clarify for their understanding what that difference is, does it? Linking that phrase to an article that does not explain it either makes it more confusing. With regard to your addition "used a ribbon attachment to denote" (note grammar mistake), the first sentence of the next paragraph explains that, so we don't need to be redundant. In any event, I will take another stab at revising the text again, with the intention of trying to make the distinction more plain. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk)
Its still confusing... makes it sound like all decorations can have the V. This time will not forget about the 2nd paragraph and make that easier to read and understand too.
A "V" device is a metal 14-inch (6.4 mm) capital letter "V" with serifs which denotes that a decoration was awarded by the United States Armed Forces for valor in combat instead of being awarded for meritorious service or achievements.
A "V" device is a metal 14-inch (6.4 mm) capital letter "V" with serifs, which when worn on certain decorations awarded by the United States Armed Forces, distinguishes an award for heroism or valor in combat instead of for meritorious service or achievement. YahwehSaves (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

FMF Combat Operation Insignia, title change requested[edit]

Would you change the article title of Fleet Marine Force Combat Insignia to the correct title of the device - Fleet Marine Force Combat Operation Insignia. Its causing confusion there. Thanks YahwehSaves (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


I guess I should have mentioned this to you first before editing at this article: You mentioned or lectured to me about not using the parenthesis. I removed a "parenthesis" in the Mickey Mantle box and the "for the"... which I thought were both not necessary and improved the infobox (yes or no?), and was given a crazy "WTF", "what are you doing", revert by User:Yankees10.

New York Yankees (1951-1968)
New York Yankees, 1951-1968

MLB debut
April 17, 1951, for the New York Yankees
April 17, 1951 - New York Yankees

Last MLB appearance
September 28, 1968, for the New York Yankees
September 28, 1968 - New York Yankees

He also has under:
"Career highlights and awards", which should be Career awards and highlights:
"20x All-Star", he list 20 games in parenthesis when a "game" is not an "All-Star", which could or should be
"All-Star, 16x": .... He credits several players infoboxes like Rick Ferrell as a 1945 MLB All-Star when there were no 1945 MLB All-Stars officially selected that season due to the war, the 1945 MLB AS Game was cancelled and not played. Someone should ask him or lecture him "what's he's doing" with 1945 All-Stars in several infoboxes .... YahwehSaves (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been gone for the past week. Looking at the above, I would say it would be best to look at what the normal conventions are for Wikipedia articles for the style in which that kind of information is displayed for consistency. With regard to parenthesis, it's best to avoid using them in ordinary article text (always see if the sentence can simply be rephrased, such that parenthesis are not necessary), but there are some things in which using parenthesis is normal and expected, like when giving a date or date range after a proper noun. For example, "Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)" would be an expected way to use parenthesis in a Wikipedia article, rather than writing "Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1865", etc. Are there other baseball related articles you can look to for comparison with regard to how they display that information in the infoboxes? With regard to incorrect information about whether or not a given player was a Major League Baseball All-Star, I have no expertise in that area, but that sounds like a factual item that should definitely be brought up on the Talk Page, in order to get to the truth and to settle the matter. Sound good? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
There are two articles titled All-star and All-star game and only one article Major League Baseball All-Star Game.
If you can, would you begin an article titled "Major League Baseball All-Star"; that is if it is All-Star/All-Star Game rather then All-star/All-star Game? YahwehSaves (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
You'll find the newly begun article here: Major League Baseball All-Star. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Added content and sources. All-Star players are not All-Star Games; there were no official MLB All-Star players, teams, and game in 1945 because of the cancellation of that season's All-Star Game. Are you following the article/talk? YahwehSaves (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've been extremely busy of late and haven't spent a lot of time on Wikipedia following articles. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I expanded the Major League Baseball All-Star article, if you get a chance take a look at it now. The question is whether it should remain a separate page? I would think so. 05:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talkcontribs)

Ways to improve Major League Baseball All-Star[edit]

Hi, I'm Elliot321. AzureCitizen, thanks for creating Major League Baseball All-Star!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank you for your contribution. However, it doesn't cite any sources. Please add more sources and lengthen the page. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Elliot321 (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation Star[edit]

I needed to make a Silver Citation Star revert at the military award devices article since "Citation Star" had already been listed there with the other devices. You may want to change the article "Silver Citation Star" to or back to "Citation Star" (World War I, Silver Star) (?).[9] There is also the Navy Commendation Star which is a 3/16" silver star too. Maybe this change back to Citation Star needs to be in talk page at the Silver Citation Star article (could also mean silver citation, star)? Citations for gallantry in action were awarded, the 3/16" silver star was a ribbon attachment. Perhaps the article should be titled "Citation Star (Silver Star) or "Citation Star" (3/16" Silver Star)? This award for valor which was used as a ribbon attachment, and sometimes referred to as a Silver Star Citation,[10] appears as "Silver Star" when listed with and under other valor awards back in that earlier time period (MOH, DSC, Silver Star...), it was first awarded in 1920's after and for WWI citation recipients. YahwehSaves (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

For now, I've moved it back to the original "Citation Star" since it appears that is the original (and correct) name, and no disambiguation is required at present because it is unique (no other countries in the world use "citation star" to describe something). Sound good? AzureCitizen (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Its ok now, unless more wording is applied to the title like Citation Star (silver star). You added the Citation Star was replaced by the Silver Star Medal in 1932. The Citation Star was incorporated unto the medal I read - see Silver Star Medal section. I did not want to use word "incorporated" in the article. The medal is actually 2 stars if you want to mention that. May or not be mentioned in the "Silver Star" article.YahwehSaves (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Silver Star Medal[edit]

The current DOD Manual says Silver Star Medal (SSM) only.[11] Will you consider to change the article title from Silver Star to Silver Star Medal? YahwehSaves (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, I am unable to get that page to move to "Silver Star Medal" when I try; there is an error message saying that the assistance of an administrator will be required. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Article is "Silver Star", but maybe should be Silver Star Medal since DOD 12/2016 is naming it that now which more or less Army will too. After all it is a U.S. military "medal". YahwehSaves (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Al Franken[edit]

Hi there. I have zero tolerance for abusive sockpuppetry of this type and would fully support an SPI. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Hello! Thanks for posting a note of support here. I imagine we both find it disgusting that a male political-POV pusher would pretend to be a woman protesting gender abuse on a BLP in an effort to vote stack... and this coming after they promised to abandon their system-gaming ways the last time they were unblocked. I first encountered him doing this stuff back in 2010... showing up with a sock claiming to "vote". Even then, he pretended to be a woman (diff). He tends to be overconfident about his edits without realizing the behavioral evidence is obvious, and isn't afraid of Checkuser because he knows to use different PCs at different IPs (diff). If you check his Talk Page, you can easily retrieve the posts by admins regarding his block for vote-stacking stocking in 2013 and his conditional unblock in 2015 to refrain from socking. I was just going to post on one of the previously involved admins page with diffs, but on reflection, perhaps it should really be an SPI to properly stop the abusive behavior and make the sanction stick. Unfortunately, I am sitting in a USO at an airport right now, getting ready to leave shortly for another flight (going home to spend Thanksgiving with the wife & family)... so I won't have time for a couple days to give this the proper attention it deserves. Do you have any time to move an SPI forward (which I'll join & contribute), or do you want to standby and wait until I have time to get this process started later? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no issue putting together an SPI, but this one looks particularly tricky if we want to maximize the chance of it being successful, and there is a lot of historical stuff I'm unfamiliar with, so I'd prefer to be patient and leave it to you. The good news is that admins are more likely to be receptive due to their edit history and unblock condition; the bad news is that the SPI might depend on behavioral evidence, which is thin given the most recent sock's short edit history. I'd think the best approach would be to show that this episode mirrors the pattern. How do you know they're actually a man? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
With regard to the sock master being male, I can't point you to a specific edit in their personal edit history, it's just my assessment based on what I've seen for a long time now. For good reason, I took a deliberate extended break from all things Wiki over the holiday and while visiting with family. Upon review of the article's Talk Page tonight I see that nobody really fell for the puppet, probably because it's obvious it's a sock posting contrived nonsense... especially the ridiculous claim that they were following instructions from a "private feminist forum" on how to edit on Wikipedia against male "hostility" and "bullying." GandyD calling them out shows that an actual woman editor quickly sees right through it; predictable that would happen when a male pretends to be a victimized feminist sock to push his partisan politics. Also, did you note the boorish attempt to imply "Ass" at the front of my name in their hasty reply? That misspelling was not an accident on his part; while comical, it's just another sign that gives him away in his aggressive behavior. In any event, I understand your point that while the sock is obviously a sock, it's difficult to tie the sock to the sock master based on a small number of edits. What is obvious to me might not be so obvious to the admin who happens to action the SPI. On the other hand, judging by the way sock and sock master went silent on the talk page shortly afterwards in the face of the "vote" becoming 17 to 3, I'm sure he realizes it's a lost cause now. He may well read this post here and feel compelled to don the sock again, but it's not going to help him get his way, is it? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure they see their participation in that RfC as a lost cause, and that's certainly good. What I'm afraid of though is that this sort of socking could tip the balance in the next dispute, or the next one, or the next one. I for one will be tracking their edits very closely from now on, and if I see SPAs !voting in any similar discussions then I'll be sure to look for even a whiff of a connection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


Regarding Peter Strzok, I mentioned this at my user talk page, but want to say it here as well: in case it might be pertinent to you, please be aware of WP:COI. You are not supposed to insert info into that BLP, or correct well-sourced info that you think is wrong, based upon personal knowledge without obtaining and citing reliable sources per WP:RS. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Does this pertain to something concrete or is it just a thinly veiled attempt at intimidation? Volunteer Marek 02:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems like bullying to me. Also, WP:SOURCEACCESS seems much more relevant than WP:COI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I referred explicitly above to my user talk. But I guess you folks are too busy to look, and too inclined to make baseless accusations. Azure Citizen said there, “He made it up to the rank of captain before he joined the bureau. However, there are no open source accessible online resources for that right now.“ Can we perhaps agree that material at Wikipedia should be reliably sourced to verifiable sources, rather than confidential sources of people who are somehow involved with a BLP subject? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: Relax, there is no COI here. Be prepared to respond on the Talk Page regarding the Deputy Assistant Director thing, I'll post there next. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

7th Guards Mountain Air Assault Division[edit]

The RUSI report there is no evidence except the words of Igor Sutyagin, who was convicted in Russia for treason. He had not a single fact in proof of his words, only the retelling of the official Ukrainian propaganda. You think he can be trusted? The number of troops, which he says is simply impossible not to notice. But no one has seen them, and you just believe in the word of this man, which was offended by Russia. So again I ask: why do you trust the source in which there is no clear facts? (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Just so we are clear on our understanding, are you claiming that thousands of Russian soldiers did not invade Ukraine in 2014? AzureCitizen (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thousands of soldiers? You understand that such a massive grouping can not be leave unnoticed, then why is there no evidence other than the words of propaganda? It seems that all the thousands of soldiers are in the author's head. No tracking from satellites, no signs of intrusion, only words. Even not a single modern patch of the RF Armed Forces was found. Obviously, if there, then Ukraine could not resist them.
I know that Russia supplied military equipment and weapons there. Most likely, there are Russian military instructors. But the traces of the appearance of all those divisions about which Ukraine speaks are not there in principle. Even RUSI can not show traces. Btw, around the same time the chief of staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces says that there are no military operations with the regular Russian Army (try to translate subtitles). (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you aware that the Russian Armed Forces awarded thousands of medals for distinction in combat to Russian soldiers for combat service in 2014-2015? Or do you dismiss that as "propaganda"? AzureCitizen (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
And Hero of the Russian Federation Pavel Ostanin, who received it in February 2015, and whose action details are still secret? A local Russian media source (not Ukrainian!) reports the death of a serviceman in the Donbass here. Kges1901 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Pavel Ostanin serves in special operations forces. It's irregular troops. He may participate in special operations. In the second source nothing is said about the Russian soldier, it could be a mercenary or a volunteer. (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I see a significant number of awards. And even if we assume that the recipients were EACH soldier (but that's doubtful), it is still a huge group. So why can't they show Russians troops except the numbers on the medals? It is suspicious. (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Significant efforts were made to conceal their involvement, including small details like commanders ordering soldiers to leave behind all RF Armed Forces patches before crossing over the border. In October 2016, President Putin publicly stated his justification for why Russia did what it did. You may want to check out the article Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) and give it a thorough read. If you disagree with the content, you can register your thoughts on the Talk Page there. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Clint Lorance[edit]

Thanks for your cleanup tonight of Clint Lorance. It was much in need, and you did an excellent job. KalHolmann (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd never seen the article before (and happened to come across it shortly before going to bed), but felt immediately it needed some help. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion[edit]

Greetings, AzureCitizen. If you want to, feel free to chime in at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 24#AR-15. Mudwater (Talk) 21:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note with the link, I was gone the rest of the weekend and wasn't tracking the conversation there. I will give it some thought... am not sure yet, but I would think the AR-15 style rifle or AR-15 disambiguation page would be the better choices, going on the assumption that most people searching for "AR-15" are looking for general information on what they are as opposed to the specific model made by Colt. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Help me understand[edit]

In the Mass shootings article, why are we listing, for example, "multiple types" for the Texas tower shooting, but then "semi-automatic rifle and pistol" for Sandy Hook? Why aren't both "multiple types"? Or why is Umpqua Community College shooting "semi-automatic pistols and revolver" instead of "multiple handguns?" It just seems to me like we've gone out of our way to use the word "semiautomatic" as many times as possible. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, we want to present the reader with information that is accurate and useful with regard to what types of firearms were used in a particular mass shooting. I suspect there are far more semi-automatic entries because mass shooters are able to use semi-automatic weapons more effectively (I'm sure you'd agree). However, once we start listing three or more different types, it becomes unwieldy. So my logic for the table is that if the shooter uses one or two types, we definitely list those, and if the shooter uses three types or more, we annotate it as "Multiple types of firearms" as opposed to the old entry "Multiple weapons." As only six of the twenty entries were shootings in which the shooter used a single firearm, keeping entries like "Semi-automatic rifle and pistol" or "semi-automatic pistols and revolver" continue to provide better granularity versus having a chart with a majority of entries saying "multiple weapons". It gives readers a better impression of what most mass shooters are using if they are doing at-a-glance research as opposed to clicking on each individual incident article and trying to make a tally. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Jaguar here... I think we should include as much verifiable detail as possible for these items. List out everything; if it's a list of 15 guns, then include them all. Obviously the Vegas shooter's use of a bump stock received tremendous coverage, so it should be included. Names of manufacturers should be included too when available, as press coverage often comes around to them too. Also, citations should be inline rather than in a separate column to help with source-text integrity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Tables like that should be a snapshot, not an exhaustive list. Each one of those incidents has an article linked to it, in the table, that provides the more in-depth list. If we were to apply your reasoning, we should list the killers name, date of birth, time of day, day of the week, probably the killers place of birth... and so on. Just because we can "verify" something doesn't mean it goes into every chart. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Upon my return, I see this has turned into a discussion at Talk:Mass shootings in the United States#Level of weapons detail, so I'll rejoin any further discussions there. As the trend seems to be going in the direction of adding further details, I will re-look the "multiple firearms" situation again to see how many incidents involved more than three, and which did not. For the latter, it might be simple enough to just add that information. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


Are you a admin? What policy do you believe supports your removal of reliable sourced content, that with its opposing view brought neutrality to article. -72bikers (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:BRD for a better understanding of what happens when you add new content, then someone else removes it. Basically, your next move should be to go to the Talk Page and seek consensus. Ironically, I was just about to post something there about conducting a survey, so look for it in a few minutes. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Again could you state if you are a admin? Are you aware of this WP:NPOV "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." -72bikers (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
If you are trying to argue that WP:NPOV makes it such that the content you want to add must be added, you should probably try to explain that better on the article talk page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for starting the survey, I was about to do the same. -72bikers (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)