User talk:Garuda28

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


Hello, Garuda28! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do


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

Andrews Field[edit]

Could you take a look at the recent edits to Andrews Field? There's also some uncivil typed diarrhea on the talk page I'm loathe to respond to directly. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat: Dang that was vile. I'm reaching out to him to see exactly what his issue is with the article and I'm going to attempt to mediate a solution if he responds. While I was at it I noticed that there was a similar talk requesting a move to rename the page to Andrews Air Force Base, like we did at Langley Field. Do you know if you could make the move the same way you did before or teach me how to do so? Thanks. Garuda28 (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Re: the move I made on Langley, it's called a swap, and can only be done by users with Page Mover status or by admins. Page Mover status is granted to experienced and trusted editors on a case by case basis, per Wikipedia:Page mover. It's a great tool, but you need a lot of Wikipedia experience, especially in participating in move discussions, to get it. It's something to work towards if you want. - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
On swapping the Andrews pages, remind me in about a week, and if there's been no objection to your comments there about renaming, I'll do it then. - BilCat (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. I'll keep you updated on the status of the edits on Andrews field if they flare up or if I can get some solution going. Garuda28 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@BilCat: Per our earlier conversation there are week long talk pages with sources, either with agreement or no comments, requesting page moves at Andrews Field to Andrews Air Force Base and Hickam Field to Hickam Air Force Base. Thanks user:BilCat!
Done. - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST[edit]

Auxiliary Pilot Badge[edit]

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

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


Hi, I noted the change you made to the "Commamders" section of the USAF article infobox. It's not that I agree or disagree, I'm just curious as to whether you intend to make similar changes, for the sake of uniformity, to the infoboxes of the other service branch articles? (USN, USMC, US Army & USCG) Cheers - theWOLFchild 08:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries! I fully intend to when I get some time (maybe over the next week), for now it was solely to revert it back to the way the page was.Garuda28 (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Meanwhile, if you have a free moment, can you take a look at this? Some questionable edits. Brand new editor, not particularly cooperative. And, I don't have access to the sources he has cited. (maybe you do?) Anyway, if you don't mind, take a look and see what you think? Cheers. - theWOLFchild 08:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC) (btw - I can take care of the infoboxes, i've got some free time right now)


OK, I've just finished. The 'commander' section of the other 4 service branch infoboxes now match up with the way you set up the USAF box. The only difference to be found is in the service-specific rank abbreviations, as they vary depending on service, but it needs to be that way. However, there is a uniformity to all those sections now. (We'll see how long it lasts). I'm done for now. Hopefully when you're back in, you'll get a chance to check out that issue I posted on the FBI talk page, (if you don't mind). Cheers - theWOLFchild 10:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

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

December 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Note: This is not at all a warning, just a friendly request. Posting notifications helps identify vandals and point well-intentioned newcomers in the right direction. Thank you for all your efforts here on the project. Cheers - theWOLFchild 23:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks TheWolfChild! I’ve been looking all over for these and will be sure to use them. Garuda28 (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how much you already know about this stuff, (so sorry if I'm being redundant), but on the left of the 'search' box at the top of the page is the twinkle (TW˅) drop-down menu. On that you'll find all the warning templates, as well as welcome templates and such. Cheers - theWOLFchild 00:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Afghan Army[edit]

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

@Buckshot06:Sure! Most of the edits were of a minor nature (capitalization, proper terminology). That specific one was completely unsourced in the prior citation. The German U.S. fund dispute didn’t seem to fit on the ANA page, since it doesn’t directly apply to the ANA, and rather is more appropriate for German-U.S. relations. Does that answer your concerns?Garuda28 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The 17th Div, 4th Corps, for Herat, is well sourced. Happy to find an additional source if necessary. Also, for the ANA, "following the money" is vital for discussion of foreign support, which we hardly have in sophisticated terms of the monies at all. I want that in there. The remainder edits were great - yes, late 2002 is a great date for a start, though arguably some battalions were trained before. Definitely better than 1798 or whatever.. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I think maybe a source directly related to the commander would be great! Gotcha, I understand on the German thing. Yeah, that’s why I added one for the modern ANA and one for the first (since the article covers all of the Afghan Army). As always great working these out with you!Garuda28 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


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

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


I just made an edit cleaning up that article, but when I checked it, there were several changes that I didn't make. I notice you were editing at the same time... Maybe an edit conflict? Dunno... usually there is a notice on that. Anyway, my edit didn't change any content, just typos, some linking and delinking and a small section of repeat info removed. I'll leave the page be and let you carry on with your improvements. Cheers - theWOLFchild 21:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

ThewolfchildYeah, I think we had an edit conflict. Almost did again as well. Thanks for the heads up. Garuda28 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I just undid my edit, reverting to your last edit, then went thru and made the same corrections again. Should be ok now. - theWOLFchild 23:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it worked. Garuda28 (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Did you review the change I made? Like I said, mostly correction and copy editing. There were some awkwardly worded sentences, two sections with the same info and some over-linking. I see the work you put into the page and wanted to say you did a good job. If you ever want a second pair of eyes to check anything over for some tidying-up, let me know. - theWOLFchild 04:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Air Force almanac 2017[edit]

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

Unforunitally the lowest it goes is wing level, sorry. They seem to have overlooked AEGs in this edition. Garuda28 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. What wings are listed, and at which bases? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I don’t have it on me at the moment, but I’ll make sure I get you that information this Sunday or Monday. Garuda28 (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

So its combined for USAFE and AFA

31st FW (Aviano AB)
39th Airbase Wing (Incirlik AB)
48th FW (RAF Lakenheath)
52nd FW (Spangdahlem AB)
86th Airlift Wing (Ramstein AB)
100th Air Refueling Wing (RAF Mildenhall)
435th Air Ground Operations Wing (RAF Alconbury)
501st Combat Support Wing (RAF Alconbury)
603rd Air & Space Operations Center (Ramstein AB)

Discussion about MOS:JOBTITLES[edit]

There is a discussion about whether to add clarifying text (shown in boldface ) to MOS:JOBTITLES at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Clarification of "Titles of people" that you may be interested in. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Garuda, you may be interested in an evolved suggestion regarding MOS:JOBTITLES that is receiving support/non-support at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Alternative suggestion for comment. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk page discussion[edit]

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

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Stop [1] removing a very rare public reference to very low-profile units!! We add refs, not remove them!! Buckshot06

Buckshot06 Appologies - I did not realized I removed a reference, rather it seemed more like commentary on a non special operations forces unit. Shouldn’t refs like that either be in an extra sources section in the bottom or in a foot note using Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

? Looking though my history I didn’t realize I removed that before and then was reverted by you, my apologies. I did not intend to go around you like that. Garuda28 (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Will you get over it? They are military, special (unconventional), just non combat. They're all closely associated with JSOC's combat units. If you had read the section you removed properly, you would see that it was intended as an introduction to the entire list of special non-combat units - it's practically the only wikipedia-standard RS for all of them!! Yes, I could used the same footnote at the end of each line, or, saved everybody's time by a single introductory paragraph. Leave it alone!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Buckshot06 my edit was made in good faith, and I am not demonstrating any ill will or am engaging in an edit war that would disrupt the article, so please show a little bit more patience with me. I misunderstood the purpose of the section, and frankly was not aware that that was a litigate way to cite, so please take a step back and try to educate me on this so I can better myself in the future. I’ve now learned, and will ensure I don’t make the same mistake again. I’m very open to learning and feedback. Garuda28 (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Change of command[edit]

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

Scheduled to start at 2pm eastern time. I'd say as soon as that starts we can officially upgrade USCYBERCOM and all the other UCC articles, since that's what DOD has said when the change will occur. Garuda28 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Roger, thanks! AzureCitizen (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed this; you're 100% correct that it's not a sub-unified combatant command (I misfired there). What I meant to say was that it was a service component command (the ASCC in this case for USCYBERCOM of course). See the Army public affairs release here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Ahh, gotcha. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12[edit]

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

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

US Public Health Service[edit]

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

Perhaps a more appropriate edit is along the lines of "PHS Commmissioned Corps is legally designated as a military service, though not considered one of the 5 Armed Services, and officers of the PHS are classified as noncombatants...", rather than deleting the phrase entirely. I would also welcome your suggestion for rephrasing this if something about it still does not sit well. (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please start a discussion on the article talk page, where it can be seen by all. Garuda28 (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I looked up 5 U.S. Code § 8331 - Definitions because I was curious about the definition. First off, the NOAA Corps IS included in the "military service" definition, because this particular subchapter was written when the NOAA Corps's direct predecessor, the Environmental Science Services Administration Commissioned Officer Corps, was in service. The ESSA Corps is mentioned under 5 U.S. Code § 8331(13)(c) of the aforementioned "military service" definition. Second, and most importantly, the 5 U.S. Code § 8331 clearly states, that the definitions in subsection 8331 is "For the purpose of this subchapter" (namely Subchapter III) only, and is not the definitions used for the entirety of Title 5. I find that to be very important because 5 U.S. Code § 2101, states "For the purpose of this title" are definitions that encompass the entirety of Title 5 itself.

5 U.S. Code § 2101 - Civil service; armed forces; uniformed services states....
For the purpose of this title—
(1) the “civil service” consists of all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services;
(2) “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard; and
(3) “uniformed services” means the armed forces, the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This mirrors the definitions as stated in 10 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions
(a) In General.—The following definitions apply in this title:
(1) The term “United States”, in a geographic sense, means the States and the District of Columbia.
[(2) Repealed. Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, § 1057(a)(1), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440.]
(3) The term “possessions” includes the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Guano Islands, so long as they remain possessions, but does not include any Commonwealth.
(4) The term “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
(5) The term “uniformed services” means—
(A) the armed forces;
(B) the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
(C) the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.
So going by the definition of 5 U.S. Code § 2101, which covers the entire Tittle 5 and supersedes the definitions from 5 U.S. Code § 8331, the Public Health Service and the NOAA Corps are NOT part of the military, since one, they are considered noncombatants, and two, they do not carry weapons, unless they are attached to one of the five armed services, in which case they could bare arms depending it their assignment requires it and henceforth militarized for the duration of said assignment. The entire corps of the PHS and NOAA cannot be militarized as a while unless the president of the United States designates each service as military. Neovu79 (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this, @Neovu79. You're correct that NOAA and USPHS are defined equally considering the reference to ESSA Corps, which I had missed - appreciate the correction. In any case, the challenge is the muddled and inconsistent way these 2 services are defined under 42 U.S. Code § 213 as "active military service" with respect to full eligibility for military benefits, while being unarmed services leads to two overlapping but not equivalent definitions of "military" and "armed" services... While other sections of US Code as you pointed out are narrow in their definition of "military" to be essentially equivalent to "armed" services.
To stick with my intent of being directly faithful to both the text and spirit of the law, I would propose stating factually that active service in the PHS is defined under law as "military service" with respect to eligibility for military benefits and legal protections, but that the service is a noncombatant service, unlike the 5 armed military services. @Garuda28 I agree to raise the question on the article talk page in a bit but don't have the bandwidth in the immediate future to be able to contribute well to any active discussion that arises. (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


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

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

The spelling of commander in chief.[edit]

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

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

This is the page I’ve corrected and it then get changed back. Is that automatic or is someone doing it?

Wiki info must be corrected when wrong.


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

Why add 20th Air Force when other missile air forces are not added[edit]

in that template? Sammartinlai (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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


Good work slimming down the USAF page. - theWOLFchild 03:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Lt Gen Maryanne Miller fourth star nomination[edit]

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

Same! This is so cool! I can’t pin it down yet, but I can’t think of any commands off the top of my head! Garuda28 (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
After doing a thorough review of the remaining four-star positions, so far I see one likely and two outside possibilities. Generals Ellen M. Pawlikowski and Carlton D. Everhart II and Admiral Kurt W. Tidd are all scheduled to retire. That makes U.S. Southern Command, Air Force Materiel Command and Air Mobility Command available. Out of the three, Air Mobility Command is the most likely destination for Miller, in my opinion. Miller has a lot of experience as a commander of reserve air forces, particularly in air mobility and airlift, which AMC encompasses. In the earlier part of her career, she's flown in a hand full of the aircraft AMC uses. But most importantly, a good portion of AMC is comprised of reserve airmen and Air National Guardsmen. Neovu79 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Flag of NATO color[edit]

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

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

Flag of NATO[edit]

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

Have some patience. Current consensus is against addition, so what that means is that unless other users chime in it will almost certainly not be added. Garuda28 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The consensus is from when there was only one instance of the flag. Neovu79 hasn't commented after I found the second instance. 475847394d347339 (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The arguments are nearly the same. The bottom line is that there is no consensus to add, so wait for people to comment. One instance vs. two instances does not change the argument. Garuda28 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
It implies a broader policy of use. I don't know why you think the argument is nearly the same. Besides, you may look for yourself and find no instance of the proper flag. 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Doing this is WP:ANALYSIS which is explicitly forbidden. You need to wait for more people to comment if you want to add it to the article. We work on consensus here. If you want to add this you need to wait for consensus to form. So I realize WP:Analysis might not be clear. What it means is that we cannot interpret primary sources to mean something (like different flags meaning that there are secondary or unofficial ones). To do this we need a secondary source to explicitly state this. Does this make more sense? Garuda28 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
What is the argument really against inclusion? It is to be clearly noted that it's not the official flag. Neovu79 just noted the sentence "The official colour code for the blue is PMS 280." on page 14. So what is the argument against noting the use of the two flags? 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The argument is that you are looking different sources and coming to a conclusion that the sources do not explicitly (or even not explicitly state). In essence you are coming to a conclusion that the sources do not state. That is text book WP:ANALYSIS. Do you understand why this violates WP:ANALYSIS?Garuda28 (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
What is the conclusion you think I am coming to? Please excuse me for drawing it out. 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries! What I see is that you are finding different variations of the NATO flag within different NATO publications. Seeing that, you believe that they must be alternative or unofficial variations and wish to add that as such. Is this correct? Garuda28 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
NATO does not make a statement about any alternative or unofficial flag, but they appear, and I want to state no more (in the article). 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Becsuse they do not state anything about it we cannot say anything about it. Doing more than that is what violates WP:ANALYSIS. Garuda28 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
It's excessive to ask that NATO state that this flag being used is meant to represent NATO, but that's not required. 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note, your original complaint to Neovu79 was that "My interpretation is that the document deals with the logo, not the flag." At the time, you didn't look at the flag which appears on page 14. While Neovu79 himself just noted that on page 14, the Visual Identity Guideline notes "The official colour code for the blue is PMS 280." These two statements can not be taken to indicate a position agains the putting of thes two flags in the article, that you claim there is. 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I asked them for a second opinion, not a complaint. And they agreed that you are misinterpreting the source. Now if you want to continue a conversation on content, please do so on the article talk page and not on mine so that everyone can see this. Garuda28 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
475847394d347339, I've been asked to step in and help explain what the concerns and issues are with what you may be trying to do. I'm just here to help Garuda28 explain exactly what WP:ANALYSIS means (please don't take this as an implication that I believe what you're doing is wrong) - I haven't dug into the matter in-depth; I was asked to assist with explaining the policy :-).
Wikipedia (and all encyclopedias around the world) are important sources of information because they verify their article contents and information are accurate and true (as well as other reasons, too). Verifiability is one of the most important fundamentals of building an encyclopedia and with the best and highest quality information as possible. If there was no way for you to verify for yourself that something you read in an encyclopedia was accurate and true, you'd have a very hard time feeling confident that any of that information was true at all in the first place. This is why all Wikipedia content must either be attributable to a reliable source, or (in many cases and requirements) directly attributed (cited in-line and linked) to a reliable source.
Reliable sources are those that meet a list of important criteria, including that they are secondary (meaning that the source references primary sources for their information), are completely free and independent of the subject (no conflict of interest, ties, or anything like that), are peer-reviewed and scrutinized, and accepted as providing objective analysis. We must not only write articles and content using those sources for verification (since those are the best places to get that information in the first place), but we must also write content that directly reflects the information as it's presented, stated, concluded, or analyzed by those sources and with absolutely no deviation.
Here's an example: Let's say there are three forests (let's just name them forest A, forest B, and forest C) and we're writing an article about a large and dangerous wolf that hides in one of those three forests and comes out at night to eat people. If reliable sources state that hunters looked in forest A and B but were unable to find the wolf, we must write the article and reflect the statements from those sources as they're said. We absolutely cannot use the information from those sources and also write that, "since the wolf wasn't found in forest A or B, the wolf must be hiding in forest C". That's an example of original research - where we take information from sources, draw our own analysis and conclusions, and publish them to Wikipedia articles as if it were verifiable information. This kind of information is not only typically wildly biased, incorrect, and uncyclopedic, it's completely unverifiable (which is in direct conflict with an encyclopedia's need to write content that's as verifiable, accurate, and true as possible). This is why such actions (big or small) are disallowed on Wikipedia and why concerns are being expressed in the discussion above about what you may be doing. It constitutes the same thing if I were to add content to an article and say to other editors that ask me for a reference that "I'm the source because I live here and I know this city", or "the information came from my grandmother who knew this person", or "I did the math myself and I know that this unproven theory must be true" - we've all seen messages from people that do and say this, and we know that while what they're doing may be in good faith... it's absolutely not information that's any good nor is it information we accept because there's no possible way to actually verify it.
I hope this message has helped to explain the issue and why the concerns being expressed above need to be discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus reached by multiple users involved before any such information is added to an article. I understand that you believe that what you're doing or what you're concluding is correct (and who knows, it might be correct), but we absolutely cannot use information that's based off of first-hand experience, analysis, relationships, or research. If you don't believe that this is what you're doing, you should discuss it on the article's talk page and explain in very high detail exactly what sources directly state the information you believe is true, and provide everyone links to all of these sources so that they can verify them for reliability. Either way, you need to discuss disputes on the article's talk page and follow dispute resolution protocol so that everyone has a chance to discuss the concerns and come to a consensus. If you have any questions about anything I explained or any policy pages that linked you to, please do not hesitate to message me on my user talk page here and I'll be happy to help you further. I hope this response has helped and I hope that this issue comes to a positive closure. Good luck to you both! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: I didn't take the time to read over your explanation. Do you think page 14 of the NATO Visual Identity Guidelines and page 8 of Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014 will breach Wikipedia's citation policies? My effort is not to note that NATO as an alternative flag but to note two instances of an alternative flag. I tried to note for some time that it is hard to find flags in NATO documents, because NATO specifies that logos should be used instead. I added that to the article without any misfeelings. 475847394d347339 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
475847394d347339 - Aww... C'mon, man... That's cold. I spent some good time on that message for you! :-(
From what I'm reading, it sounds like there's a dispute over the image of the flag being used on the Flag of NATO article, and that you believe the image being used now is incorrect due to the specifications outlined in the documents you listed here (the blue color being too dark)... is what I'm interpreting from the discussions here correct? Is this what the dispute is about? If so, the short answer to your question is that I don't think that this is a matter of breaching any "citation policies". If the official documents specify that a specific flag should be displayed and that it specifies the exact color that is correct, then I'd say that the document is a perfectly legit source to use to asset that the flag or the colors of the flag currently used on the article is incorrect (I notice that the NATO VI Guidelines .pdf you provided specify that the horizontal blue flag is preferred to be displayed on web pages and specify the color that's correct). If I'm reading correctly and understand this dispute, this isn't a matter of "original research", this is just a matter of getting the image correct so that the proper flag is displayed... that doesn't sound like it should be too complicated. Regardless, it is under dispute and you do need to discuss your findings on the article's talk page. Given what you provided here, I'd say that if you believe that the flag is incorrectly colored or not to the specifications outlined, then those documents would be perfect in proving this. Please let me know if I was incorrect in my interpretation of the dispute (and do explain so I can understand), or if you have any more questions or concerns. I'll be happy to help discuss the matter in an objective an uninvolved position. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:General orders[edit]

I had added the category "General orders" to the page "Civil War Campaign Medal" since it has the following statement on the page:

The Army Civil War Campaign Medal was established by the United States War Department on January 21, 1907, by General Orders Number 12.

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

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

Category:Cyber and Information Domain Service[edit]

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

So that name is the one reflected in If you can provide an English language source for your claim we can discuss it in the article. My suggestion is to make the article deal with the branch and headquarters, if you provide some sources on the organization I can help out. Garuda28 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
That is the problem. I can provide enough German language sources but this was the only one from our media team in English. I can scan my business card but I don't want to display it on wikipedia. I'm working for my HQ in international environments and because we're new everybody looks up the HQ. Our official stuff is hidden in military networks and everybody is fine but with industry it's a problem and when a wrong name is settled it's hard to get rid of it. Like in this article were someone used a wrong wording without any source and now it can't be changed by the people how work there. I was not aware that it is so difficult to change wrong stuff without any source to correct stuff. If you have a look on our military academy ( ) you'll find at the top that they belong to the domain service and later on (what we do) they describe that they support the headquarters.Schariez (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunitally if there is no original source there is not much we can do, since a name is already provided. Also since you are affiliated with the organization you need to familiarized yourself with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I’m also not entirely sure I understand the difference between the service and headquarters that you are trying to state. Maybe if there is an English language article written now or in the future you could send it my way? I really would love to help, but without sources there is not much that can be done at the moment. Garuda28 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Space Command[edit]

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

Appriciate it! Implementation will be interesting to see. Garuda28 (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
From what I understand from the reading the NDAA 2019, the law allows the commander of Air Force Space Command to concurrently serve as the first commander (since 2002) of USSPACECOM during the first three years of it's re-establishment. After that initial three years, they must both be held by separate (assuming four-star) officers. Neovu79 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
That’s my understanding as well. You might want to take a look at this as well ( Looks like a lot of positions are about to change. Garuda28 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
That's very funny, because I just read Report: Air Force General May Be Next Head of Joint Chiefs just before looking at your response. It pretty much mirrors The Hill's report as well. I think Generals Goldfein and Hyten are fine choices for either Joint Chiefs assignments. But, the law states that the chairman and vice chairman, and cannot both be filled by officers at the same service branch at the same time. Goldfien would be at the top my list for chairman. It's sad that no Navy officer is being considered for any of these important positions, cause the Navy has been sorely under represented in joint four-star assignments the last 3-4 years. Neovu79 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
That they have. If I were betting, it’d be Golfein for Chairman, Milley for vice, and Raymond for Chief of staff of the Air Force (although he’d also be a high candidate for chairman). Lotta Air Force representation this year for sure though. Garuda28 (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The Navy has steadily seen a decline in four-star assignments since Admiral McRaven retired from USSOCOM and they continued to lose positions when Admiral Winnefeld stepped down as vice chairman, and then Admirals Gortney and Haney also retiring in 2016. Since the retirement of Admiral Rogers this year, the Navy has seen a 1 to 5 gain-loss ratio, with the lone gain being USSOUTHCOM with Admiral Kidd. Kidd is retiring this year and Vice Admiral Faller has been nominated to replace him. But, when you have the Army with about the to see an increase from 11 to 14 four-stars and the Air Force with 14, which by the way has 7000 less active-duty personnel than the Navy, which has only 8, you can see that there is a disparity and imbalance of four-star officers. Neovu79 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

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


Hi, I had a look through MOS:MILTERMS and can't seem to find what it is you were relying on in your comments at the Chinese Navy page move discussion. Would you be able to point that out, or otherwise clarify your comment there? Thanks - wolf 05:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild Sure! I’ll leave it here as well! So the section is “Formal names of military units, including armies, navies, air forces, fleets, regiments, battalions, companies, corps, and so forth, are proper names and should be capitalized. However, the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name. Thus, the American army, but the United States Army.“ What I was going after was the “American army” vs. “United States Army”. Obviously if consensus reaches a different conclusion for a title (since I’m not sure this has happened before, specifically), then it should change (and I would support capitalization for titles in that case. Garuda28 (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it would not have to be "Chinese navy", just like the Military-Maritime Fleet of the Russian Federation page isn't called the "Russian navy" and the 1st SFOD-D page isn't called "Delta force". MILTERM is just a guideline. - wolf 19:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

United States Armed Forces: [edit]

Hey, I don't think your edit to the branch seals in the infobox will last. I won't change it, but don't be surprised if someone else does soon. There are some issues there. Just a heads up... - wolf 05:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

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

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

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