User talk:Cuprum17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Animated-Flag-Kansas.gif
I'll reply to your message here.
Nuvola apps edu languages.png
Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Charles David Jr[edit]

Good Evening MKC,

This email concerns the edit you made of the cutters page. I am a plank owner and the current BM2 stationed onboard the Charles David Jr. The ship was originally named just Charles david but at the family's request the jr was added to the name prior to commissioning . I was wondering if you know how to edit the actual name of the artical. Thank you for your 20+ years of service.

Semper Paratus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattk2788 (talkcontribs) 22:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Good evening, BM2 Matt K. Yes, I can change the name of the article, but I hesitate to do it until I know for sure that the name change actually passed muster. Someone on the cutter needs to tell the CG Historian's Office that the name of the cutter has been changed and they need to get the word out to us poor retired slobs that have the time to do this type of editing. This is very interesting to me and I would like to document the change in the article correctly by Wikipedia standards with the proper referencing. I'll be happy to make the change if I have something to go on. I'll do a little research and if I can find the right reference, I'll make the change without hearing from you again, otherwise I'm waiting to hear from you or the CG Historian's Office. Belay that...see last comment...
Thank you for your service and you get to work on that BM1 Servicewide Exam...you work too cheap and need a pay raise! When you make Chief, let me know and I'll sign a charge sheet for you! Semper Paratus! Cuprum17 (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Already done, BM2 and thanks for the heads up... Cuprum17 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USCGC Cape Horn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jones Beach (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) 10:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Billard[edit]

Tks for catching the year-range thing -- temporary blindness... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Mate! Cuprum17 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png (I'm bbqing tonight so I thought it'd be appropriate). Thanks for your cpyedts to the Revenue Cutter Service article. But beware. I may reference you in the future when faced with yet another accusation that wikignomes are generally in the "anti-caps" camp. As you obviously know, caps are just tickety-boo when used correctly. Primergrey (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles D. Michel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meritorious Service Medal (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) 10:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Women in the United States Coast Guard[edit]

Could you please patrol my article Women in the United States Coast Guard since you liked it? Also I made Women in the United States Air Force if you feel like patrolling that. Thank you so much. Precience (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I make it a habit to patrol all Coast Guard related articles so that the service is presented an accurate and NPOV light. I started patrolling the article the minute that I was aware of its existence. Thank you for creating the article and if you want to create any more Coast Guard articles I would be delighted to patrol them also. As for the Air Force article, I will patrol it also, but there will probably be plenty of others involved in editing Air Force articles. I hope my edits to your new article helped and if you need advice on Coast Guard matters, I'm right here most days. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks! Precience (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Somebody already patrolled my Air Force article so you don't have to but thanks for offering. Precience (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Does this apply to the Coast Guard?[edit]

Found this, wasn't sure if it affected the Coast Guard or not: In 1967 Public Law 90-130 was signed into law; it removed legal ceilings on women's promotions that had kept them out of the general and flag ranks, and dropped the two percent ceiling on officer and enlisted strengths for women in the armed forces.[1] Precience (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Women In Military Service For America Memorial". Womensmemorial.org. Retrieved 2015-08-12. 
It is my reading of PL 90-130 that it did not apply directly to the Coast Guard. The law only modifies the existing United States Code Titles 10 (Department of Defense mostly, except as applies to the Coast Guard Reserve.), 32 (National Guard), and 37 (Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services). The Coast Guard is unique among the armed forces and is mentioned specifically in Title 14 USC. It is not included in the Department of Defense but it is still on of the five armed services. The Coast Guard and its predecessor agencies have always resided outside the Department of Defense and it's predecessor agencies. Until 1966, the Coast Guard was a part of the Department of Treasury because it was historically a law enforcement agency and picked up military responsibilities at a later date. In 1966, the Coast Guard became a part of the newly formed Department of Transportation. The reasoning behind this move was that most of the missions of the Coast Guard related to the regulation of the maritime transportation industry. In 2003, The Coast Guard was transferred to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. There are exceptions to this; during declared wars or when the president directs, the Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of the Navy. (Law enacted in 1801, I think) So, in the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War; the predecessor of the Coast Guard, the United States Revenue Cutter Service served under the Secretary of the Navy. During World War I and World War II, the Coast Guard served under the Secretary of the Navy. During the Vietnam War, the Coast Guard as a whole wasn't under the control of the Navy, but did send cutters and crews to serve with the Navy. (Spoiler Alert...I wrote the article on Vietnam service.)
A couple of other things need to be mentioned for a better understanding about how the Coast Guard relates to the other armed services and the two other uniformed services. There are seven uniformed services in the United States. They consist of the armed services (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and the Coast Guard) plus two others; the U.S. Public Health Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps. Title 37 U.S. Code deals with pay and allowances of the uniformed services, meaning all seven services. The Coast Guard is included in the act to the extent that they do not have their own medical officers and rely on commissioned doctors, dentists, and nurses from the Public Health Service for medical care. One other thing. The Coast Guard Reserve at the time of the writing of PL 90-130 was intended to support the Navy in the event of a call up of the reserves under presidential Title 10 authority. This is why the CG Reserve is mentioned in the second line of the law.
Have I confused you enough? If you are concerned about women's service in the armed forces, I suggest that you check into the Public Health Service. This is because of the high percentage of women in the USPHS relative to it's total end strength, and because many of those women serve with the Coast Guard for at least a portion of their USPHS career. These would be all officers and they would be serving as doctors, dentists, and nurses. The Coast Guard does have its own enlisted Health Services Technicians which serve as independent-duty corpsmen at small Coast Guard units and cutters.
One other thought. Often times legislation that affects the other armed services is addressed later in similar legislation that brings the Coast Guard into line with the other armed services. Suggest some research on later laws possibly in the same general period of time.
I hope this has helped...if it confused, I am sorry. The Coast Guard is a complicated beast, but one that I served with proudly for 18 of my 24 year military career. If I can help you in any way please let me know...and thank you for your interest in the Coast Guard and it's women members. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! It was very helpful. Precience (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't Ask Don't Tell?[edit]

Did Don't Ask Don't Tell and its repeal apply to the Coast Guard? Thank you. Precience (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Good question. The short answer is that it didn't affect the Coast Guard directly because the underlying legislation (10 U.S.C. § 654) was a Title 10 bill which had to do with the funding of Department of Defense programs. However, it did influence the Coast Guard to the extent that the Coast Guard Reserve at that time was funded in whole by the Department of Defense. I was a Coast Guard reservist at the time and do recall getting training on DADT policy on an annual basis for several years. The training consisted of about an hour of handouts and Powerpoint presentations on DADT issues usually presented by an officer sent specifically for that purpose to our reserve unit. Sexual harassment training was also conducted at the same block of instruction and was also a one hour block of instruction given on an annual basis. I recall that there were few problems in our reserve group with the instruction as most took the instruction at face value. I can't tell you what kind of training the active duty Coast Guardsmen received because at that time I was not around very many of them. Incidentally, the term "Coast Guardsman" is the proper term for those persons serving with the Coast Guard, male or female. Most reservists had civilian employers with much of same policies as DADT, so we were mostly familiar with the concept anyway. We did have one woman reservist that we all knew was lesbian, but she never made an issue with it and no one ever gave her grief over it mostly because she performed her duties just like everyone else. Had she or any of the other reservists made an issue of her sexual orientation, then she would have been dismissed from the service. We all knew this and kept quiet about the situation. Other than the silence on the issue, she didn't receive any special favors nor were any expected by her. She had 14 years in on a required 20 years of creditable service and no one wanted her to lose her retirement. Although we all knew her to be lesbian, there was never a hint of her sexual orientation during duty hours, which is as it should have been. Last I heard of her she had retired from the reserves and was living with her girlfriend in Charleston, SC. That has been at least 10 years ago. Personally, I was impressed with her deportment during the time I served with her because during off duty times when the some of the unit would go out on liberty, she would bring her girlfriend with her just like I would sometimes bring my wife. A good time was had by all. On duty, she was all business.
The long answer is I am sure that there was identical Title 14 (Coast Guard) legislation to the Title 10 legislation that was the basis for DADT, but I can not give you a cite for it's existence. Obviously the Coast Guard did follow DADT. I suggest a search of 1994 laws to find ones that deal with the Coast Guard and then look at the provisions of the law in the contents section of the bill to find what you are looking for. The legislation you would want to look for would be dealing with the funding of the Department of Transportation. I wish I could be more helpful on this. I will, if time allows, do some research on this and if I find anything relating to the DADT or sexual harassment issues, I will get in touch. Have an nice rest of the weekend. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Precience (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil Air Patrol[edit]

Hello. Earlier, an IP user updated the membership numbers of the Civil Air Patrol and you reverted the edit with the comment "not what source says. Update citation to update numbers." I'm not sure if you noticed, but the update did include a new access date to the source. So I'm wondering if there was more to your concern? Etamni | ✉   02:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A new access date on a citation doesn't change the citation or the information that is intended to be conveyed by using that citation. I didn't actually check the reference at the time I reverted, but upon reading your question I did and discovered that the reference used is a registration page for CAP personnel and doesn't actually say anything. This is not a proper reference as far as Wikipedia suggests and certainly doesn't support any personnel numbers for the CAP article. I would suggest that a different reference be used to cite numbers.
As for your question about having "more to your concern?" You seem to intimate that I have a problem with the Civil Air Patrol itself. I do not have a problem with the CAP and support its efforts to educate young persons about aeronautics and the CAP mission of search and rescue. I was a CAP cadet from 1963 to 1965 while I was in high school and much of the training I received from the cadet program transferred to the beginnings of my military career when I enlisted in the Army in 1966. Basic military courtesies and drill were part of my instruction and were applicable to any military service. I patrol the CAP article to help reduce vandalism on a good article. It doesn't happen often, but if I catch edits that reduce the value of the article, I do revert. Thank you for your interest, and I suggest that the first two citations in the article need some work to accurately cite information in the article. These are the two cites that need a better reference:
33,656[1] senior members (as of 31 May 2015)
23,607[2] cadets (as of 31 May 2015)
  1. ^ "Civil Air Patrol eServices". Retrieved 7 June 2015. 
  2. ^ "CAP eServices". Retrieved 7 June 2015. 
The "Eservices" page used as a reference doesn't convey any information about the actual numbers of senior members or cadets and requires a Wikipedia reader to register to find the information which is not desirable. I would suggest a better reference be located and cited. I look forward to seeing the reference corrected, if not by you then perhaps someone else. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I apologize if the question seemed to imply any particular concern -- my intent was to ask if there was a concern not mentioned, not assume or imply something in particular. You answered the question by stating you have a concern with the source used to update the information. I can understand that concern, but in this case I don't think it is warranted. Before I get into the explanation of why the eServices site is appropriate for obtaining membership numbers and other numerical data about the Civil Air Patrol, I want to mention that it is used in the Civil Air Patrol Wing Infobox template. In other words, it is used on every single CAP wing article on Wikipedia.
The controlling policies for this source are WP:SOURCEACCESS which states that a source should not be rejected just because it is hard to access or sits behind a paywall, along with the WP:ABOUTSELF exception to the rules on self-published sources. Access to the eServices site is intended for CAP members only (which I am not, but I've seen it) and, for those logged in, the citation links directly to the information. The information is updated regularly with end-of-month data. The membership numbers are not of enough interest to mainstream media to be published elsewhere very regularly (and when they are published, they are rounded to the nearest thousand, while eServices gives the exact count), nor are they exceptional claims. I suspect the only reason this information is in the members-only portion of the CAP websites is because they don't realize that there are interested individuals outside of their organization, and it is a convenient place for members to find the info (along with all the other stuff they access there).
Finally, the change you reverted was by an IP user. The version you reverted back to was by the same IP user. I'm guessing it is a member who has access to the eServices site and was just updating the info after noticing the information and citation was a couple of months out of date. Regards, Etamni | ✉   21:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)