User talk:Neovu79

Archives

Archive 1

Template:Enlisted rates and insignia of the United States Navy has been nominated for merging with Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/United States. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of highest-grossing animated films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit [1] that same anon changed the description of the article to say the MCPON had red stripes[2]. I'm confused, since the picture has him with gold stripes and his mast was in 1996, why would he have red stripes? I'm thinking all the changes by this anon should be reverted... -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Neovu79, my apologies to tap on you, but any chance I can get you to chime in here - Just looking for some ideas on the lead (trying to keep it concise & grammatically correct) Cheers - FOX 52 (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey quick question, where are you seeing that GEN Dickenson is nominated for SPACECOM? I checked out the source on the article, but didn't see it there. Garuda28 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: It's more like putting 2 + 2 together. Per the NDAA 2020, the Chief of Space Operations can only serve as commander of USSPACECOM for one year of the NDAA's enactment, without having to go through senatorial confirmation. Afterwards, the President is then required to nominate a new USSPACECOM commander. The dual hat that Gen. Raymond currently holds is also required to be split and USSPACECOM must then be turned over to the new commander. GEN Dickenson has an extensive career in space and missile defense and he is currently serving as USSPACECOM's deputy commander. Lastly, as you already know, since USSPACECOM is a unified combatant command, which means any qualified officer from any service can be appointed as its commander. Neovu79 (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was my going in assumption as well - thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you one. You were right.Garuda28 (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you’re doing well. I noticed the abbreviation clarification you made and did a little google searching. I couldn’t find any reference to the vice chairman as VJCS on military sites but found plenty with VCJCS (such as https://www.jcs.mil/About/). Would you be able to share where the abbreviation is coming from? Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: Part of it is coming from my time working for the Navy, as all of their internal documents have always abbreviated the vice chairman as VJCS. Even in all of their public press hearings for example, here and here have abbreviated the vice chairman is VJCS. Neovu79 (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - I’m slightly concerned that DoD isn't being internally consistent on this, which makes this slightly harder. I’ve found inconsistencies going back to the 1990s and as recent as this year; but I think it’s just something we’re gonna have to live with – good catch! Garuda28 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope you’re doing well. I was wondering if i could get your input at Talk:United States Space Command#Joint Force Headquarters – Air Force Cyber as a providing component since you’re pretty well read in on U.S. military UCC structure? Also you were right on Dickinson being USSPACECOM - I owe you one. Garuda28 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: I don't think you really owe me anything. It's just the U.S. Army making things harder than they need to be, on four-star assignments. They should know that it's not always difficult to match an officer's career with the finite number of four-star commands and their experience requirements for the position. Neovu79 (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll admit, that one surprised me. I’m also surprised it wasn’t a Space Force Officer, considering I’d expect them to try to keep as tight a grip on SPACECOM as the Navy does in INDOPACOM (granted, there’s only one three star who really could be put up for it, and I’m guessing they’re keeping him to be VCSO. Garuda28 (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: Hypothetically speaking, the DoD could have created a requirement for Dickinson to also transfer to the Space Force in order to receive his fourth star, but that would just add some more red tape. My best guess is, that since SPACECOM is a joint command, there's no reason to force a inter-service transfer if the current law allows him to still be in the Army while serving as commander. Plus, if the Space Force wanted to claim SPACECOM as their "traditional" command, they currently don't have any general officer candidates, much less any other general officers beside Raymond, within the service, to submit to the Secretary of Defense and the President for consideration. Neovu79 (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted your cut-and-paste move of Unified combatant command, as it broke the page history. Please propose a page move through the WP:RM process. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one's you want for the template - are there SVG's equivalents available (ie)? If so let me know i can create some (just let me know the color & design changes desired) . Cheers - FOX 52 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance I’ve seen says that the Space Force’s enlisted ranks have the exact same design as the USAF ones right now, unless otherwise stated. My thought is that extends to the SEAC insignia, but I want to hear your thoughts as well? Garuda28 (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: I'm okay with that, as long as we make a reference that the Space Force is mirroring Air Force guidance. Did the guidance mention anything about first sergeant ranks? Neovu79 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far it’s identical to the Air Force in structure and the USSF have first sergeants. Garuda28 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neovu79. Would you be able to create a new page for LTG (Ret) Robert T. Dail? I have all his bio information, just struggling to make a proper page. Thank you.

Gen Dail Guy Friday (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gen Dail Guy Friday: Done. Robert T. Dail Neovu79 (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gen Dail Guy Friday (talk • contribs) 11:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just was wondering if you were planning on creating new rank insignia for the new Army Greens, kind of like the Marine Service Alphas, old Army Greens, AF Service Dress, etc?Garuda28 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - just found them! Garuda28 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: I already updated the United States Army and the United States Army officer rank insignia pages Neovu79 (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neovu79: I don’t quite have time in the moment, but it appears that a ton of the false sources were accidentally readded to the General of the Armies article. Figured you would know which need to be cut though. Garuda28 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to him on their talk page and pinged you as well, in case you have anything you wanted to follow up on. Neovu79 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Remember, though, that due to bad past experiences - including with editors like the one you mentioned - with articles that deal with the highest ranks they tend to be watched more closely. What caught my attention here was the absence of sources for the information added, which is why in the revert I noted that the information was being removed without prejudice. It can go back in once its reliably sourced, that's always been the deal with the reverts to this article. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the reason that user added the citation is becuase, I believe, they were either not sourced for years or, were cited from a single source that proved to not contain that information, or was added as part of a user's WP:OR. Do you believe it would be best to remove the questionable statements in general, and then just re-add the statements after third party sources are found? Becuase some of the false information that we did already remove has had a negative imprint in society. Neovu79 (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just saw your edit on Space Force naval rank but don’t understand it (I totally believe you btw). As a matter of personal curiosity could you explain what happened? Garuda28 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: From what I understand, each year both the Senate and the House submit each of their own version of the NDAA. Then they pass them to one another to see if the other chamber would pass their version and/or they would reconcile one of the bills that both chambers can agree on. In the recent years, I've noticed that more often than not, it's usually the House that passes the Senate's version or a passes a reconciled Senate version. This year however, it's the other way around. However, when the Senate passed the House's version on November 16th, they attached an amendment (S.Amdt.2682) to it that amended the House's bill with many of funding and requirements that they had on their version of the bill. I believe that the Senate did not see eye-to-eye with the House on whether to let the Space Force decide for themselves, how and what their rank structure would look like, and their version of the NDAA originally reflected that. I think this is why S.Amdt.2682 included the removal of Rep. Dan Crenshaw's amendment of requiring the Space Force to adopt naval ranks, from the bill. They sent it back to the House to see if they would pass the bill with their included amendment. The House voted unanimously to disagree with the amendment, however they did not vote to reject it. Yesterday, the House's NDAA bill with the included Senate amendment, was sent back to the House's armed services committee for consideration of passage, even though they do not agree with it. Neovu79 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since Rep. Crenshaw does not sit on the House Armed Services Committee, there's a good chance that the current amended NDAA will be pass through committee for a full vote from the House, due to it now being near the end of the 2020 Congressional session. Once a bill goes out of the committee it's usually more difficult to add amendments to it. That isn't to say though, that the clause could not be re-inserted before the committee votes on it. Neovu79 (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! This is certainly one that I’m very personally interested in, so I appreciate the explanation. Garuda28 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: So far, the only uniformed service that Congress allows, and/or continues to allow, to decided their own rank structure is the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, which is why 42 U.S.C. § 207, the section that statutorily governs their rank structure currently reads "grade(s) corresponding" instead of the actually stating the actual ranks currently used by the service. The current 2021 NDAA gives very similar latitude for the Space Force since the inserted rank structure currently reads "or the equivalent grade in the Space Force" and does not state whatever actual rank they will use. Crenshaw's amendment clause, which was last updated and included in the House's NDAA on July 21st, was to have added a new section in Title 10 (Title 10 --->Subtitle D. Air Force --->Part I. Organization --->Chapter 908. The Space Force --->Section 9xxx. Rank and Grade Structure of the United States Space Force). It would have read, "The Space Force shall use a system of ranks and grades that is identical to the system of ranks and grades used by the Navy." however, as I mentioned above, the current codified NDAA submitted on November 16th has that clause completely removed. Neovu79 (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you by chance have a graphic for a post-fleet/force MCPO rank is? I was doing some digging on the naval exchange (trying to see if they carry red rank for the special ranks, and if not I wasn't going to include it on the rank chart) and saw a post-Fleet/Force MCPO rank with two gold stars on top and the central star being white instead of gold. You know anything about this? Thanks!Garuda28 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-fleet/force MCPO rank? As in, if they leave/removed from office and remain in the Navy? I've never seen a MCPO rank with two gold stars on top and the central star being white, during my time working at the Bureau of Naval Personnel, because the Navy considers fleet and force master chief, position-linked ranks and ratings. If a fleet or force master chief were to be removed from office for disciplinary reasons, they are usually forced to retire or are reduced in rank, and if they're extremely lucky, retire at rank. If they are allowed to remain in the Navy, the chances of them remaining a fleet or force master chief is extremely slim as the flag or general officer commanders they advise, are the ones that selects them to their assignment. If they leave office due to their assignment term ending, they are usually re-assigned to another fleet or force master chief position or are promoted to a joint assignment as a senior enlisted advisor to a sub-unified combatant command or higher. I've never seen one revert back to a lower E-9 rank but it is possible. I believe that would normally affect their retirement benefits as the Navy can choose not to retire them as a fleet or force master chief, which is also possible, as Congress does not regulate enlisted ranks via law. Enlisted ranks and pay are regulated by the DoD. I'm pretty sure that a fleet or force master chief that does not receive any additional assignment usually chooses to retire as a fleet or force master chief to receive the highest retirement package. Also, since 2019, the Navy amended their regulations so any enlisted sailor that has served 12 years, regardless of good conduct or not, are allowed to wear gold chevrons, so there is no longer a chance for there "red rank" command/fleet/force master chief as the commander of that command would never select a command/fleet/force master chief with less that 12 years of service. That is completely unheard of. Neovu79 (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance, at all, of a CPO, SCPO, or MCPO with less than 12 years? Garuda28 (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, via one-off situations, though it is highly unlikely. The president of the United States could order to have a sailor promoted to a certain rank, as in the case of SOC Edward Gallagher who was promoted from E-6 to E-7 by President Trump. However promotions like this are frowned upon as it circumvent standard Navy enlisted promotion regulations. A high-ranking flag officer and above senior DoD leaders can meritoriously promote a sailor if warranted, i.e. heroism, however, I have not heard of such a promotion publicly announced, though it would probably not be considered of news worthy note by the DoD, in most cases. A big misnomer is that receiving the Medal of Honor automatically comes with a promotion to a higher rank. It does not, and nowhere does it state that in regulations or in U.S. law. However, receiving a Medal of Honor will most likely give them preferential treatment when a sailor becomes eligible for promotion, or it may very well give them a "below-zone" waiver to have them considered for accelerated promotion or have their name in front of a promotions board. Even so, the Navy has become even more stringent and constantly amending regulations to control enlisted promotions over the last 80 or so years, as Congress sets the total allowable enlistment promotions, via the NDAA, each fiscal year.

A person with a bachelors degree can enlist and enter in the Navy as an E-4. From there, it is possible through normal means to be promoted to CPO within 8 years. This is of course assuming that there is headroom and vacancies plus the candidate regularly excels and exceeds expectations in duty performance, evaluations, and testing scores, and a promotions board from E-6 to E-7. Regulations sets minimum promotion eligibility from E-4 to E-5, at 6 months time-in-rank, then 1 year of time-in-rank from E-5 to E-6 and then 3 years time-in-rank to be eligible for promotion to E-7 through E-9, each. So, through normal promotion methods, the fastest a sailor can be promoted to master chief is 13 and a half years. Normally, it takes an average of 20 years.

Also, a fun fact, a fleet master chief is senior to a force master chief, via MILPERSMAN 1427-010. A lot of good Navy regulation information can be found at the Navy Personnel Command website. Neovu79 (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed the image you swapped out of the Patton page today as it was photoshopped. Good call btw. I don't do much (like at all) on Commons, is it typical for that site to host fake images like that? I hope not, as that could shake one's faith in the content of that site. And this one. Speaking of fakes, it appears that image was created by the now infamous OberRanks. Whether thats a factor or not, should something be done about that file? Thanks for any insight. - wolf 04:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's a good question. One would assume that uploads to the Commons would be accurate, but you know as well as I do, that is not complete true. I would say that it's 90% accurate. That's why, when I do find a discrepancy like that, I call it out and try to make appropriate corrections, if at all needed. Neovu79 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assistant Secretary for Health, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Reed.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neovu79,

as I don't know whom to talk to about this, did you see that someone changes all awards sections? He changed that of Milley by taking out OSB's, Expert Infantryman Badge, French National Order of Merit and so on... 2001:7E8:CCED:3D00:CC5F:6247:15E0:73EE (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the French Order of National Merit, Commander for Milley... The entry was sourced, so why take it out? claudevsq (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I made the necessary corrections myself, hope they'll stay in, besides the sides... SmartyPants does not even notice that, on an Army uniform, what he calls "Right Side" is the left side and vice versa... Just saying... claudevsq (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would like to ask if you could start leaving summaries with your edits. You don't seem to leave many (your stats show only 1 in 10) and I've noticed because many of the pages your edit are on my watchlist. To make things easier, you can use abbreviations. I'm sure most, if not all, of the editors that watch or work on the pages you edit would appreciate it if you could start leaving some kind of summary every time you edit a page. Thanks in advance. - wolf 19:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated quite a handful of the USPHS awards (most of them don't have an actual page attached to them), and I'm going to start working on updating and creating pages for the rest of them. So there will likely be quite a few edits on that page. Any help with double checking edits and formatting after the fact are appreciated. Dusa1981 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: - It's unfortunate that you feel that way. I don't recall ever having an issue with you collaborating.

I originally wasn't going to address this because (1) it was so long ago, and (2) I know you don't like using your own talk page for personal discussion and (3) I've recently come to the concussion that its probably fair for you to know, since you may be under the impression that I may be working against your edits. My original thought process over what I'm about to tell you, was since it was so long ago, holding it against you would be just petty on my part and it's not really in my nature. Back in 2016 you reach out to me on my talk page due to me not leaving edit summaries when making edits. On top of that, you reached out to Anna Frodesiak as a source of reinforcement. Leaving comments has not been my style. Now frankly, I have not left summaries on a vast majority of my edits, because I consider my work as a minor fixer, and I normally don't have the patience of the time to make major contributions and additions to wiki on a consistent basis. Sure, I can agree that it is courteous and it is in WP:ES but I consider that guideline literally just that and not a rule, and on the occasion when I consider my edits significant enough to warrant it, I will leave an edit summary. To this date, you are the first, and only person who has ever had a problem with the way I edit on Wiki, which is significant to me, since I can remember that event clearly and since I've only had one other confrontation with another editor, and that resulted in the editor being wrong. As you have again reached out above, it seems that it is still a sticking point for you. However I have been set in my ways for the past 15 years and I'm not going to change that for one editor. Overall, I generally have not had any major disagreements with you as an editor and I assume your goal is to make positive contributions so, there you have it. I hope this was a constructive and through answer your questions. Neovu79 (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so... (bear with me, I wanna make sure I've got this right) I made a request that you add summaries to your edits, which you refused, I then asked Anna to chime in (kmowing this was of importance to her - how do I know? 'cuz she posted the same request on my tp), and even though I had posted this five years ago, you're concerned this might look "petty"? I don't even know what to do with that... (so, I'm gonna do nothin'). Let's fast-forward to a month ago. It seems you still generally refuse to leave edit summaries, and I have again requested that you do you so. No template, just a straightforward, and dare I say, polite request. In that month, you've still only left about 1 summary for every 10 edits, and even though nothing changed, I have not raised the issue again. Ftr, I forgot all about five years ago, and it's not as if it's still here as a reminder, because you've deleted much of you talk page (and there doesn't appear to be an archive). Seems you like to clean up your tp as well, just not as often as I do. As for "I know you don't like using your own talk page for personal discussion", that's not something I really get to decide. I do like to try an keep article-related talk on article tp's, (where it belongs), and I try to keep any nonsense to minimum. That's about it.

But is any of this really important? I mean, just today you repeatedly reverted some of my edits, and posted talk page comments that range from not-all-that-enthused to fairly chilly. And that leaves the other open issue, (the one you copped the quote from), the enlisted rank insignia images. The one where after multiple pings at Garuda28's tp, it seemed like you just weren't going to respond to us. Then after the thread was moved, and you finally did reply, it was, not exactly, shall we say, all that 'collaborative'. But, I hope I'm wrong. This can be a tricky medium sometimes, can make it difficult to read people. I think we have a consensus on the enlisted patches, and I hoping we can make some improvements to the AN and related pages and templates. Best way to do that is to look forward, and not dwell on the past. Have a nice day - wolf 04:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading messages are always a gray area since you cannot tell what a person's tone is like. So let's assume that you're not trying to accuse me of anything negative and I'm not accusing you of anything negative. So when it came to your general inquiries and pings the last few months, I generally did not have time or energy to monitor and thoroughly engage in the discussions as you wanted. Those months were an extremely busy time and I was in the middle of personal matters which I will not discuss with you, and frankly is none of anyone on Wiki's business. The discussions that did happen in the enlisted articles just looked to be people looking to fix something that wasn't really broken to begin with. Now I understand wanting to appease to people who are color blind, so I left the decision up to the rest of the community and asked you all to make a decision and stick by it. If you took my replies as not at all collaborative well I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I can't completely control how you will perceive my tones over the internet and I would expect everyone to assume that my comments as not targeted. As for reverting your AN edits, the link you provided looks to be an inaccurate research paper which we have contradicting recorded statements from Congress and the Navy. I doubt the author had access to the information at the time he wrote the article nor does the author note that it is Congress who are the ones that ultimately approves what grade a AN should be, through law. Why should we take the word of the Navy since they were forced to remove the rank from its regulations? Neovu79 (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If you took my replies as not at all collaborative well I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I can't completely control how you will perceive my tones over the internet and I would expect everyone to assume that my comments as not targeted." That wasn't about tones, but actual words, those you can control. But, it seems you agree with me about the limitations of reading tone, and therefore attitude, on talk pages, and I've already stated that I respect the work that you've put into many of the articles here, so let's call that progress. But that said, I didn't ask you about your personal life. To be fair, if you're going to be involved in articles, then disappear, that's on you. Everyone has a life outside of WP, but only you can determine if you should be involving yourself in content changes if RL is going to limit said involvement from then discussing those charges. The discussions are an important part of WP. Lastly, I think your pivot to the AN article is best left to the AN talk page. - wolf 21:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've starting doing a rework of the List of active duty United States three-star officers page into the more ordered format that I believed you made the four-star page currently. I was hoping that you could help me with this and tell me if I'm doing anything wrong. The newer version of the list I hope to get consensus for and replace what is currently on that page is in my user sandbox. Thanks very much! SuperWIKI (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC) @Neovu79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperWIKI (talk • contribs) 03:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: I appreciate you reaching out, however there are over 300 active duty three-stars (the list is definitely missing almost half in various joint positions). A list that size is way too big for me to monitor. Unfortunately I just don't have the free time these days for such a project. Neovu79 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. I'm already done sprucing it up. Thanks anyway! SuperWIKI (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

correction, your list is a lot more complete than I originally accessed. Good job though. Neovu79 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And P.S: 90% of those "joint positions" are either completely unknown to the public or buried in the General Officer assignments and Flag Officer assignments. For the two-star officers and senior enlisted pages I'm doing, I'm limiting to publicly-known and readily available commands and for enlisted, SELs and SEAs serving at the very least a two-star commander. Just in case, do you have any tips on how to proceed? PPPS, I didn't create the original page, Smartypants22 did. I just re-organized it to match your style because it was more readable that way. SuperWIKI (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't really have any advice to help with this. The hardest part about maintaining this list is that the Army and the Marine Corps no longer maintain a public list of all of their general officers, especially for their service specific general officers and non-aknowledged joint positions. It's harder to track down the officers unless you specifically know if there is a three-star officer in a particular command/office, which of course, both these services do not maintain a public list of. That's really the reason I stuck with on four-stars, since is way easier to track the 6 to 8 service specific positions. Neovu79 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 NFL Draft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desmond King.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SuperWIKI (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have any sources that say Maj. Gen. A.C. Roper retired or was replaced as Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army Reserve? I'm asking because Gregory J. Mosser recently relinquished command of 377th Theater Sustainment Command to Maj. Gen. Susan B. Henderson, with sources confirming this. Gregory J. Mosser is slated to become the next DCG of U.S. Army Reserve Command as released by the Department of Defense. Gomo.Army.mil already lists Mosser in the DCG, U.S. Army Reserve Command position. How to proceed? If I choose one over the other, one general's going to be missing seeing as both Roper and Mosser are two-stars. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given how you predicted that James H. Dickinson would become the next commander of SPACECOM with knowledge of his extensive experience and career path, I'd like to know your thoughts on what three-star positions these generals will take, having been announced on Congress.gov but no USDOD announcement yet. These generals here: Ronald P. Clark^[1], Theodore D. Martin^[2], Patrick E. Matlock^[3], Eric C. Peterson^[4] and A.C. Roper, Jr.^[5].
Secondly, CSO John W. Raymond is being appointed to the permanent grade of Major General. Any idea on what this means, whether he is retiring as a MG, did not reach the three-year limit needed to retire as a four-star or is just being promoted to permanent Major General with no relation to his temporary rank of General? Would appreciate an answer. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SuperWIKI When it comes to General Raymond. It looks like there are officially transferring his permanent grade to the Space Force, even though he was appointed a temporary grade of general in the Space Force back in 2019. If you've read through some of my previous conversations with other users, for the past 5-6 years, the Army has not been forthcoming with their general officer assignments until after an officer has been confirmed by the Senate, so that's always a pain. When it comes to predicting three-star appointments, that's a lot harder than four-stars. With four-star commands, there's usually only 2 or 3 options an officer would qualify for. With three-stars, there's at least a dozen, possibly two dozen, that they could qualify for: service component or joint positions. Staff Corps officers are a little easier because they follow a particular career pipeline. Because of this, I really could not give you and accurate prediction. You would have to narrow the list down to what three-star assignments, service specific and/or joint that would fit, which for the Army, is a lot since it's the largest service. Then narrow it even further to which one of those assignments is the incumbent three-star is leaving office or is due to leave office. Neovu79 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neovu79 It's alright. Given the recent LTG promotions for Marine Corps came in literally a day after the Congress record, it should likely be on USDOD website by tomorrow my morning. Interested to see what you thought anyway, if you can find anything more. Thanks again! SuperWIKI (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SuperWIKI I noticed that MG A.C. Roper was nominated to be promoted to lieutenant general. At least we now know he's not retiring. He's a little easier to predict. Since both the chief and vice chief of the National Guard assumed office late last year, there aren't too many positions in the DoD that a guardsman can be assigned to. My best guess is that he's being nominated to become the deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command since the position has been vacant ever since Lt Gen Sasseville assumed office as vice chief of the National Guard Bureau. 10 U.S.C. § 164(e)(4) (via the NDAA 2008) stipulates that at least one of the commanders or one of the deputy commanders of a geographical unified combatant command must be a reserve officer. Since 2008 every deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command has been an officer from the Army National Guard or Air National Guard in order to comply with that law/act. Neovu79 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neovu79 Isn't Roper from U.S. Army Reserve, and not the National Guard? SuperWIKI (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True... However the law says a "reserve officer" not an officer of the National Guard, so an officer of the Army Reserve would qualify, but you do have a valid point. But, that's still my best guess. Neovu79 (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neovu79 Well, you called it. GOMO now lists A. C. Roper and deputy commander of the U.S. Northern Command effective 4 May 2021. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following the above chat with interest. I appreciate the lists Superwiki is creating and it's great that you're helping him out. This issue about the reserve vs nat'l guard appt. had me looking at the related pages, and I ended up on the Chief of the National Guard Bureau page. I noticed that of the last nine chiefs, the position has alternated between Army and AF. Do you know if that's a coincidence or is it deliberate? If so, is it an informal understanding, or something that's codified somewhere? Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers - wolf 20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. As far as I understand, this is deliberate. However, this is really up to the discretion of the SecDef and the POTUS, but the DoD tries to rotate as many of the joint positions as possible to make if fair between services, unless certain other criteria/requirements for the position hinder exercising a rotation, i.e. USPACOM or any other "traditional" joint commands, due in part from geographic, command function, or if one service has a lot more forces in the joint command than others. Neovu79 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I think it's likely, wasn't GEN LaCamera's original nomination as USFK commander returned to the President without action? It is correct to assume that he is being nominated for the same position again under a different president (even though that's probably exactly what they're doing) with sources referring to the original nomination? Based on your experience, I'd like to know more regarding that process. SuperWIKI (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While an four-star officer has been nominated for a position after their initial nomination for a different position failed in the past, LaCamera's experience in relationship in the Pacific is well established. Abrams submitted for retirement last year and was asked to stay in his office until his replacement is confirmed so, it it leads me to well believe that LaCamera was renominated like Aquilino was. Neovu79 (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I heard in the INDOPACOM change of command ceremony from the mouth of INDOPACOM chief of staff Ronald P. Clark that John C. Aquilino relinquished command of the U.S. Pacific Fleet to Samuel Paparo earlier that morning, but RADM Stephen T. Koehler is currently listed as acting commander on their official website. If both are true, that means Koehler was acting commander for a fair few hours. Given that the USPACFLT commander list also includes acting commanders, how do I proceed? You do have expertise in these matters. Should we wait for other sources that say out loud "Paparo has been officially promoted to four-star admiral and commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet effective this-and-that?"actually that's exactly what I should do what am I talking about SuperWIKI (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neovu79: Greetings! I see that you are a very prolific writer in the navy-niche. I recently saw your contributions on List of United States Navy four-star admirals and thought it was a shame that you didn't continue as, from what I can tell, you could easily get it to featured list status. If you finish with it, I would be more than happy to review it for you and perhaps also help you with the FL discussion. Wretchskull (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wretchskull Thanks for that. This has been a huge undertaking for me for the past 5-6 years. The problem I'm having is that I just don't have the time to invest in gathering all the accurate references needed. It's been a slow process, but I will definitely contact you once I feel that it's good enough for a review. Neovu79 (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the series of edits you made today to United States National Guard, as well as National Guard Bureau, with the summary: "Officially, there is no "United States" or "U.S." that precedes National Guard".

With that in mind, did you want to consider proposing a rename of United States National Guard to National Guard (United States)...?

I know it was proposed back in 2018, but consensus can change, especially if you can present a good case for the move. Ftr, I would support it, I'm sure some some others would as well. - wolf 04:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually remember a suggested rename to National Guard (United States) but it didn't garner enough support. I recall us coming up with a compromise to it's current name, but I too would support a rename to National Guard (United States), as it would conform with other articles of countries that have a National Guard. Neovu79 (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be worth another go. Like I said, if you put a solid case together, with sourcing, WP P&G and examples (I linked the 2018 RM just above btw, I supported it then and added some examples as well), you would have a good chance of achieving consensus this time. I believe you can make a good case. - wolf 06:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thewolfchild I added a request to the talk page. Neovu79 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting it would only require "Support" and one sentence with concise reasoning, yes? SuperWIKI (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. You don't really have to give a reason for supporting, but it does help significantly to convince others to !vote as well. Neovu79 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article I thought you might find interesting. - wolf 04:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading that actually, just to make sure that I had my facts straight. Neovu79 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Been creating an awards section for Stephen T. Koehler, and per his most recent image.

Naval Aviator's Badge
Defense Superior Service Medal with one bronze oak leaf cluster			Legion of Merit with three gold award stars
Meritorious Service Medal with three award stars		Air Medal with "2" device		Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with three award stars
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with award star		Joint Meritorious Unit Award		Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation with two service stars
Navy "E" Ribbon with three Battle E devices		National Defense Service Medal with service star		Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
Southwest Asia Service Medal with black service star		Iraq Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars		Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal with two bronze service stars
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal		Armed Forces Service Medal with silver service star		Humanitarian Service Medal
Navy Sea Service Deployment Ribbon with one silver and one black service star		Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon		NATO Medal
Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait)		Navy Expert Rifleman Medal		Navy Expert Pistol Shot Medal
Command at Sea insignia

Per that image, what are the unidentified ribbons? Couldn't find them. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: I've added your missing medals. Neovu79 (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neovu79: Thanks very much! SuperWIKI (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the next list article I'm working on, you're welcome to assist if you have any ideas. P.S. it's the postion graph section at the bottom that I may not get as much. SuperWIKI (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just updated everything that needs to be updated for LaCamera assuming command of UNC, CFC and USFK but I may need some help here. What date should we register for him assuming command? Local time in America (1 July) or local time at Camp Humphreys (2 July)? Unsure if there's a Method of Styler or WP page that covers this. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a MOS for that in Wiki, as far as I know of, but for the DoD, they set assumption of ranks and positions based on when and where that promotion/change of command happens. So in LaCamera's case, he assumed office in Korea, which is about 13 hours ahead of the Eastern Time Zone of the continental U.S., and he assumed office before noon Korea Time Zone, which was 10:00 am their local time, then he assumed office on June 2nd and not June 1st. Neovu79 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given your "expertise" in selecting potential four-star appointments in the future, I was wondering who your likely picks would be for these positions (whose terms started in 2018/2019): Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commander, U.S. Cyber Command, and Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command. With Nakasone and Grady approaching the ends of their customary terms for CDRUSCYBERCOM and COMUSFF, and Hyten not seeking a third term, do you think a four-star will be laterally promoted to replace them or a member of the three-star pool, respectively? And for the joint positions, which service's counterpart (esp. for CYBERCOM, which would have the ARCYBER, FCC, 16 AF and DCI positions as the three-star hopefuls) has the best chance of taking the titles? SuperWIKI (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mock picks? Hmmmm... Well, assuming that the president and the SecDef will return to going by rotational tradition, and following normal requirements in statute, I would say the next vice chairman would come from the Marine Corps or the Navy. For the Marine Corps, General McKenzie has the most Joint Staff experience. But the most qualified officer, in my opinion, would actually come form the Navy, as Admiral Gilday has served in three other Joint Staff positions, besides his current role as CNO, which is another qualifier. For USCYBERCOM, Vice Admiral Myers would be the most qualified as he has served as deputy commander of CYBERCOM and is the current commander of Fleet Cyber Command. Also Lieutenant Generals Moore and Haugh would also garner consideration. Lastly for Fleet Forces Command, this one is harder to gauge, but typically the selection is usually base on past experience in the Atlantic area and Europe. Vice Admiral Franchetti would be my top guess as she is seen as one of the top rising female flag officers. Also Vice Admirals Cooper and Black, I would also put on the list. Neovu79 (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was also thinking Vice Admiral Lewis would also be on the docket for COMUSFF, since Vice Admiral Koehler was initially slated to replace him until he got moved to Third Fleet instead. A little off, but if the change does happen this year (in the final quarter) for COMUSFF, I doubt Vice Admiral Cooper will be a contender since he only just took command of NAVCENT in May. That is, unless we have a Dempsey situation on our hands. SuperWIKI (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neovu79: So.... Congress just released a boatload of new nominations, three of them being four-star. Now I'm 87% certain Caudle is going to be Grady's replacement. What do you think, including for LtGen Smith and Lt Gen Minihan's nominations? SuperWIKI (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austin S. Miller recently relinquished command of U.S. Forces Afghanistan. Any sources that say he will retire or is he moving to another four-star post? If so, which one do you think? SuperWIKI (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He is expected to retire after relinquishing command. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/06/07/afghan-war-general-miller/ Neovu79 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm surprised. I believed that he would replace Perna as COO of the COVID-19 vaccine effort. Who do you think is replacing Perna, assuming that his post remains a four-star post or is bumped down to three-star? Secondly, it says in most sources that Miller transferred authority of USFOR-A to General McKenzie. Does that for all intents and purpose also make McKenzie dual-hatted as 'Commander, U.S. Forces - Afghanistan' until Rear Adm. Vasely becomes Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (Forward)? I have added as much to the four-star list. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know of, Perna will be replaced by a civilian and not a uniformed officer. As for USFOR-A, I believe that it is being disestablished the same way U.S. Joint Forces Command was, and all of its components will be absorbed into USCENTCOM. Neovu79 (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm concerned with is if McKenzie temporarily assumes the title of "Commander, U.S. Forces - Afghanistan" until formal disestablishment of the command. As stated above, USFOR-A will be drawn down into a smaller command led by a two-star officer so would that mean McKenzie is dual-hatted as such until formal establishment of USFOR-A (Forward)? Miller transferred authority of U.S. Forces - Afghanistan to McKenzie so would that not mean the title and duties of the job would transfer to McKenzie at least until its formal disestablishment? RSM seems to have a formal disestablishment date of May 1, 2021, but USFOR-A as far as I know does not have any tentative date for formal disestablishment and casing of its colours, so it would still exist correct? SuperWIKI (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find the specific sources of commissions for Mark A. Ediger, Dorothy A. Hogg and Robert I. Miller. Should I assume they received direct commissions, or is there a certain way I should list the source of commission in my list? SuperWIKI (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Miller, he received his commissioned through the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, which is a direct commissioning program only. Neovu79 (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have any useful sources for the vice commander position at USSOCOM, such as any law that established it or sources pertaining to why it exists? Presumably it was to give the Air Force a permanent role in USSOCOM given its joint nature, and since there hasn't been an Air Force commander of SOCOM since 2003, it might have been created afterwards. Would appreciate your assistance. SuperWIKI (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no statutory law that created the position of vice commander of SOCOM, but I'm pretty sure that Lt Gen Bradley A. Heithold was the first one to hold the position back in 2011. This would align its creation at the height or acceleration of special operation focus in Afghanistan. The position allowed Admiral McRaven more free time to on other facets of his job, while the vice commander acts as a liaison, giving Congress and the office of the SecDef more regular updates special operations strategy. It's creation was not publicly announced beforehand so it leads me to believe that McRaven might have asked for this type of aid, but that's a guess without any reliable sources to back it up. As for an Air Force office always being nominated... You guess is as good as mine, but I think it has to do with the command's major ground forces being comprised mainly of Army Special Forces and Navy SEALs. While the vice commander is technically a joint position, and Air Force officer was probably always selected due to the commander and deputy commander already being Army and Navy for the past 10 years. Neovu79 (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read in the citation^[1] that Congress apparently limited the Space Force to create only one new four-star position: the Chief of Space Operations and thus could not create any new ones for the time being, meaning that at least 1 more four-star billet (and for the three-star billets, 5) had to be transferred from the Air Force. Is there any record of said move reducing the statutory cap on Air Force four-star officers by one, i.e. from 9 four-stars to 8 four-stars? Having read U.S. Code Chapter 908 (Space Force), nothing in it seems to mention any changes to 10 U.S.C. § 525, despite the office of CSO and VCSO already existing for almost two years now. Is there any sources available that reconcile this, some section in an NDAA somewhere? This may have some effects on accuracy in the List of active duty United States four-star officers#Statutory limits page.

On a related note, it seems the Cornell U.S. Code four-star Army officer cap no longer matches the aforementioned four-star Wikipedia page. I quote from there:

(1) in the Army, if that appointment would result in more than—

• (A) 8 officers in the grade of general; Four-star page quotes as 7

I intended to make the necessary changes, but given I lack the literacy on these types of law changes, I wanted to run this and the above through you first to make sure I know of any changes made. Did any law or regulation cause the Army to add one four-star spot, possibly that of Army Futures Command? SuperWIKI (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There may be something in the future amendment set for December 2022: 10 U.S.C. § 526a, but it apparently still doesn't address any changes in four-star limits. SuperWIKI (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished the three-star list for PHS vice admirals. Are there any PHS vice admirals who held other posts besides the Asst. Secretary for Health or Surgeon General? SuperWIKI (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that they are the only positions that has ever warranted a three-star rank or above is PHS history. Neovu79 (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Started on a history section for the CNO page. Wanted to ask what your opinion is. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neovu79,

may I kindly ask why you replaced a *.svg version of the JCS badge through a *.png version? I always thought we should use *.svg whenever available?

Greetings,

146.0.216.73 (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look more closely at the timeline of events, you would see that the PNG version of the new 2021 badge was the only one available at the time I uploaded it to Wiki Commons. An updated SVG version was not made available until Skjoldbro created one later on. Neovu79 (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did not even know the badge underwent any official change(s)...

Thanks, 2001:7E8:C643:501:B903:749:736:A6CD (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just did my usual rounds on the DVIDS website, updated all the pending four-star commands per the webcasts. May I ask if you can help with cleaning up any out-of-date links that you may find on pages where their predecessors (i.e. GEN Stephen R. Lyons now retired, Gen Gary L. Thomas now retired) are still listed? SuperWIKI (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neovu, I just read the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. The current version as it stands in the House (in section 502) is planning to elevate the grade of the vice chief of the National Guard Bureau to general. If passed in the Senate, that'll be set. SuperWIKI (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SuperWIKI There are currently two versions of the NDAA 2022 one from the Senate and one from the House. The Senate's version does not include that rank elevation while the House does. The House passed their version and submitted it to the Senate for consideration. The Senate has yet to vote on their own bill. We won't know for sure until the two bill are reconciled, and Congress will choose one bill or the other to adopt as the the bill they will move forward with, to make final amendments to. The fact that the Senate has read the bill and placed it in their calendar for a vote to "adopt" is a step forward, HOWEVER, if they choose reject the adoption of House's version of the act, which is not uncommon at all for any bill, then it gets sent back to the House to be amended. The Senate could in-turn pass their version of the act, and the process would be the the same, except vice versa. Neovu79 (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which version seems at the moment to be the likely passed one? SuperWIKI (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the House passing their version first, it's a likely indication that they want the Senate to adopt their bill. Reconciliation will ultimately combine the two bills, and they could definitely agree to remove the rank elevation, similar to how they removed the requirement for the Space Force to use naval ranks from the 2021 NDAA. Neovu79 (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the rank debate will be a bit iffy. On one hand, it means adhering to the convention of a service's chief and vice chief being four stars, but on the other hand, relatively minor increases in the budget due to the office being elevated a pay grade. Plus, what do you think of the optics of another four-star office being added to the status quo, given the debate over making the chief a four-star and later a statutory member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the latter of which faced unanimous JCS opposition)? SuperWIKI (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this convention is that the National Guard is not it's own service. It is a component of the Army and the Air Force so I never believe they should of had the CNGB be part of the JCS. One more four-star isn't too big of a deal to me, since there is still less than 1% of all officers will ever achieve those rank, even if they add 1 more. Neovu79 (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I'll keep you informed of any updates. SuperWIKI (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: Just thought you would want to know, the Senate chose to consider and work off of the House's version of the NDAA and drop their own on November 17th by an 84 to 15 vote. Now keep in mind, that doesn't mean that they voted to approve. It just means that both chambers are now working off the House's version. There have already been a few amendments that the Senate have attached to the NDAA in the past two weeks. But so far, none of them have removed the rank elevation for the VCNBG. Neovu79 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that too. Still, it'll only likely be set in stone after it's passed by the Senate. And permanent once the President signs it. SuperWIKI (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the latest version engrossed in the House. Seems they've removed it. SuperWIKI (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which amendment is that? I couldn't find the information of Congress striking that line from the NDAA. Neovu79 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links here. Dunno about the specific amendment though. SuperWIKI (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I just clicked on the above link and if read the document Bill Text -> Text of Joint Explanatory Statement HERE, I do see a statement on page 114 of them removing that amendment from the final bill. Neovu79 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it doesn't mean that much, but I am kind of sad about it. We were this close. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would have been nice to add a new name to the list. Neovu79 (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this seem noteworthy enough for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 page? SuperWIKI (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SuperWIKI probably not. It doesn't seem so notable that it would adversely affect the military at this time. Neovu79 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GOMO lists Richardson's date of rank as 29 October 2021, not the 18th when the actual ceremony took place. Since the table in four-star generals states "date of rank", should we take that into account and instead say in the ref that the actual promotion took place on the 18th instead? SuperWIKI (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the Army lists her official DOR as 29 OCT 2021, then that is her DOR. Frocking is not included in an officer's DOR. Neovu79 (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Started on projections for who's replacing who next year. Wanted to ask what your opinion is so far. SuperWIKI (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me to help fill that list out for you, with who/whom I think may be in the running? Neovu79 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd gladly appreciate it if you want to fill in, but in the original question, I was asking your opinion on what's there presently, and whether my predictions have reasonable accuracy (that we know of) and how they may be right or wrong? All the jobs I plan to shortlist for are for four-stars who started their tours in 2019 and earlier. SuperWIKI (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For CENTCOM yes, GEN Garrett would be my best guess but for USCYBERCOM/NSA, VADM Ross A. Myers would be my guess for the top pick from the Navy. Neovu79 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a gripe I do have though: Garrett is supposedly 60 years old. Unless his exact birth date (which we don't know) makes him 59, Garrett will be ineligible for CENTCOM due to mandatory retirement rules unless Gen McKenzie doesn't serve the typically four year term customary for a four-star tour or Garrett gets a waiver from Secretary Austin. Yet Garrett's two CENTCOM tours make him the most qualified for the position. SuperWIKI (talk)

Keep in mind that the statutory max retirement age for any general or flag officer is 64 years of age via 10 U.S.C. § 1253. For three-star and four-star officers, the Secretary of Defense can defer an officer's retirement age to 66 and the President can defer their retirement age to 68 without any Congressional waiver via the same statute. So even if Garrett's 59 or 60 years of age, he would still be eligible without any deferment or congressional waiver. Neovu79 (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying he's barely skirting the edge? SuperWIKI (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm saying at 60 years of age, he is well within approved statutory limits before being forced to retire, IF he is nominated to serve in another four-star command, i.e. CENTCOM. A standard term for most four-star assignments, including CENTCOM is three years, with an optional fourth year extension. So even if he serves 4 years at CENTCOM, he would be right at 64 years of age, which would be the maximum allowed cut off. He doesn't need a waiver to serve until 64, as long as the military still wants him to stay, as well as he wants to stay, on active duty for that long. If really not that complicated. Either the military says that a four-star officer must retire 40 years of commissioned service or the military says "you're indispensable" and we want you to serve longer in another four-star position(s), which will allow the four-star officer to remain in active duty up to the age 64 years of age. Neovu79 (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you! SuperWIKI (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, that's an eight-year term. ADM Caldwell's term is not up until 2023. The nominee for this position has historically been a submarine warfare officer and the previous two directors before Caldwell served as the commander of Naval Submarine Forces/Submarine Force Atlantic. Neovu79 (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have the CJCS. It's almost certain to me that an Air Force general will be selected to succeed Milley since there's a strong desire to have that service take the chair (which would make CQ the first Air Force CJCS since Myers), especially since the whole Goldfein thing. Let's, however, entertain the possibility that a non-JCS member is appointed as chairman, since 10 U.S.C. § 152 provides that the chairman must have served as vice chairman, a service chief, or a combatant commander prior. Meaning, that, unless the president waives such requirements in the national interest, the chief of the National Guard Bureau cannot, and realistically will never be, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The last non-JCS member to be appointed chairman was IIRC, General Hugh Shelton.

Which non-JCS member currently in service is most qualified to be CJCS? SuperWIKI (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well if Biden and Austin is smart, they would bring Goldfein out of retirement to become the next chairman, because out of everyone, he is definitely the most qualified to be chairman in recent memory. Since the Navy is no longer in the running for chairman, out of the Joint Chiefs, McConville tops this list. From the unified commands, VanHerck is the most qualified. Neovu79 (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McConville to succeed Milley? Wouldn't two Army chairmen in a row (while it's happened before), with the whole Goldfein affair, be unprecedented? SuperWIKI (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the chairman position has ever been a rotational position. If that was the case, 6 of the last 11 chairmen would not have been Army officers. CQ not a bad choice either, but McConville is more engaging with his soldiers and their families. Neovu79 (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the "more engaging with his soldiers and their families" part. Is there any significant evidence (again sorry I can't find those effectively) that McConville engages in this more than other hopefuls? Unlike Milley, though, McConville doesn't seem to have any joint experience at the three-star level (assuming the ISAF Joint Command counts as joint duty). SuperWIKI (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: I have to disagree with your assessment of McConville's qualifications. The fact that he has been an excellent CSA these past two years, makes him a prime candidate to be CJCS. While Joint Staff experience at the three-star level can be a factor, it is not one of the requirements set by law, to be considered for chairmanship. Neovu79 (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might just be too fixated on the whole Goldfein thing to remember certain other points, including that with Grady as VJCS, it's impossible for Milley's successor to be a Navy chairman. Thanks for reminding me. SuperWIKI (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you YouTube McConville you will see that he travels to meet with soldiers far more than CQ does in the past year. Neovu79 (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about USEUCOM? Personally think Cavoli is the top choice, plus his tour as USAREUR-AF commander, if his three-star tenure as USAREUR commander is counted, should be coming to an end soon. Plus, a little below a decade before he has to retire. Additionally, for the case of an Army deputy commander, Lieutenant General Howard is approaching the tenure that his recent predecessors have departed at: around 1 year and 200-300 days, so those chances increase if a new deputy commander from a different service comes in. SuperWIKI (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. getting more unclear now because it seems Cavoli doesn't have any assignments to USEUCOM staff despite having plenty of Eurocentric assignments. More likely now to me that if he gets a new Army command it may be U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, since he commanded the 7th Army Training Command. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The office has historically been held be an Army or Air Force officer. If they keep to the current trend of the last three commanders, the next SACEUR will be an Army officer. Neovu79 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they deep-select from the three-star pool, is there any four-star hopeful for the job? Besides Cavoli. SuperWIKI (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neovu79: What do you think are the chances that Wolters' term gets extended because of the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine? Would you say it's likely? KingEdinburgh (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neovu79: @KingEdinburgh: Seems my top choices for the CDRUSEUCOM/SACEUR role have been flushed down the toilet since both Burke and Harrigian are retiring. So, especially to you, KingEdinburgh, is Cavoli a clear shot for the nomination now? Do you have any other dark-horse candidates in mind? SuperWIKI (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neovu79: Who do you think is best placed to replace GEN McConville as chief of staff of the Army next year? Assuming that an Army incumbent in any position isn't nominated one year or less into their term, or that they don't deep-select from three-star officers, I have the current VCSA Joseph M. Martin, TRADOC commander Paul E. Funk II, and (least likely to me) USAREUR-AF commander Christopher G. Cavoli as the most likely hopefuls. Personally, I have Martin as my top choice. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CSA is a 4-year term of office. Since McConville, is not due to step down for a little under 2 years, it's safe to say the a nominee won't be chosen until winter of 2022 at the earliest. Since he's not due to retire until August 2023, I would assume his replacement would be nominated in March or April 2023. Service chiefs are usually selected based on the current financial and resource needs of the Army, and also the current U.S and foreign climates, during the time of the nomination process. At this point, it's too early to tell what's going to happen in 2023. General Funk is expected to retire next year, assuming he doesn't get reappointed. And General Cavoli is more likely to be the top candidate to replace General Wolters as SACEUR/USEUCOM, as the positions are traditionally an Army or Air Force job. General Martin would be a good choice, depending on how hands-on he's been with the day-to-day management of the Army and the Army Staff. Neovu79 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I... should've remembered that four year term. I was so fixated on combatant commanders having three-year terms. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know they report for operational purposes to their respective combatant commanders in their positions as service component commanders. However, for administrative purposes, do they report to their service secretaries or the service chiefs (i.e. the Chief of Naval Operations and Chief of Staff of the United States Army)? SuperWIKI (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the general sense, yes, but only to an extent. Service chiefs and service secretaries are responsible for training and equipping their respective service components to meet the requirements set forth by the combatant commanders, which is includes regular/normal personnel movements/rotations to meet those requirements. Service chiefs and service secretaries do have limited latitude to remove and replace personnel if they are under performing and/or under legal scrutiny. This includes general/flag officers including the four-star component commander. But going back to the "limited latitude," for officers in three and four-star ranks, they normally cannot do so without the support of the defense secretary or the president. Service component commanders also have limited latitude in retaining personnel that they wish to keep within the command. In essence, under normal circumstances service component commanders partner with the service chiefs and service secretaries, via required reports and briefs, to meet requirements of their unified combatant command. Neovu79 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LTG Michael E. Kurilla and VADM Frank D. Whitworth have been nominated to new positions, the former of which includes a promotion to general. In my opinion, Kurilla is likely to replace GEN Clarke as commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, since Clarke already has more than two years in tenure and Kurilla has several years of general officer experience in the Joint Staff and Joint Special Operations Command. Bonus points for being Clarke's successor as commander of the 75th Ranger Regiment. I mean, he could also be a contender to replace Gen McKenzie at CENTCOM, given his time as chief of staff, plus McKenzie assumed command around the same time as Clarke. Given, however, that CENTCOM hasn't appointed a three-star Army general directly to command CENTCOM since GEN Abizaid in 2003 (plus I'm favouring GEN Garrett for CENTCOM), I think it's a long shot. I almost believed Kurilla could be the nominee for Futures Command, but he doesn't have any of the budget or logistics expertise that GEN Murray had.

For Whitworth, I'm asking because he's a career intelligence officer, and that career path has only a few possible positions which he can be nominated for. Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Director of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center and Director of Naval Intelligence.

For both officers, what are your thoughts? Pinging @KingEdinburgh: to loop him in, since he updated the nominations first. SuperWIKI (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: Kurilla could replace Garrett for FORSCOM. For Whitworth, I think NGA or N2. KingEdinburgh (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was of the impression that if that were the case, both Garrett and Kurilla would be nominated at the same time. As for Whitworth, I was a bit at a loss as to what position he would occupy, given that almost of the three-star Navy intelligence officers got their positions in 2019 or later, relatively recently by overall standards. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: My best guess is LTG Kurilla will replace GEN Garrett at FORCOM, however he has been working very closely with AFC past year to implement the Dragon's Lair shark tank so, him becoming the next AFC commanding general is not out of the question. As for Whitworth, he's an intelligence officer so He's pretty limited to where he can go. VADM Robert D. Sharp is scheduled to retire this year so NGA is my best guess. Neovu79 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Kurilla is going to be CENTCOM commander. I did not expect that. SuperWIKI (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. He's has a few assignments at USCENTCOM. Neovu79 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then. If it's not Kurilla, who's likely to replace Clarke over at SOCOM, who's certainly retiring this year? SuperWIKI (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SOCOM commander is traditionally an Army general, or an officer who has served as deputy commander or JSOC commander. Neovu79 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's problematic, given that LTG Braga, LTG Fenton and VADM Green of USASOC, JSOC and deputy commander, USSSOCOM just assumed their positions in late 2021, and Lt Gen Tony D. Bauernfeind, judging by his removal from the SOCOM leadership homepage, may have quietly retired. They can't deep-select RADM Howard either, since Green is already deputy commander. Whose term do you see shortened, if that happens, to succeed GEN Clarke? SuperWIKI (talk)

The pool little larger if you include VADM Colin J. Kilrain and Lt Gen James C. Slife. Neovu79 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kilrain, Braga, and Slife would be my top picks for each branch. Neovu79 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VADM Kilrain's an odd one. He's 63 right now, as he was born in 1958, per the Navy register, meaning he has around a year before reaching mandatory retirement age. He'd need a waiver from the secretary of defense if he really does get nominated. Aside from that, there have been quite a few assistants to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff like ADM Grady who held out for less than a year before promotion to four-star rank. SuperWIKI (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This year's JCS glossary seems to confirm that the acronym VCJCS is being used now for the Vice Chairman, and some guy on the VJCS page edited it that way. Before bringing it to that talk page, I'd like to ask your opinion. SuperWIKI (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the general usage for the acronym from other DoD site cites it as VJCS [3], [4], [5], [6]. Neovu79 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to give you a heads-up, I've begun requesting colour corrections of military portraits on the Wikimedia photography workshop. Additionally, are there any official military portraits you've noticed with any glaring visual issues, like poor colouring, signatures/writing on the image, etc.? I can make requests for those too. Thanks! SuperWIKI (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SuperWIKI I did see that. I have to tell you, I'm very impressed with the amount of work that you've done. I wish I had more time, but with full-time work, full-time college classes, and taking are of my father, I haven't had much time to devote to Wiki projects Neovu79 (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the compliments! Sincerely need that at this stage in my life! As for you, well done for all your contributions as well! SuperWIKI (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Military Barnstar
		Another barnstar for a valued Wikipedia contributor for building up and maintaining general officer and flag officer lists for years! Well done! SuperWIKI (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world did you meet Kelly in person, and directly ask him about stuff you can add to the list? Did he mention his successor?

Frankly, I'm a bit jealous that as a Singaporean, I have zero connections to the stuff I'm supposed to be working on. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I met him at a Ford dealership's customer waiting lounge, while we were both waiting for our vehicles to be serviced for routine maintenance. He was in his Coast Guard ODUs so I started talking to him, since it is very uncommon find a flag officer in uniform outside of their work environment. He didn't mention who his successor is, and I didn't ask him. However he did tell me a little bit about his career and how he originally worked his way up from a seaman recruit (E-1), and has been in the Coast Guard for almost 40 years. At that point, since I already knew about statutory retirement limitations, I asked him if he was close to retirement. That's when he mentioned that he was retiring are the end of April. Neovu79 (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ranks and Insignia of the United States Navy/OF/Blank has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oof!... what happened there? - wolf 01:17, april 2022 (utc)

Hi! Who do you think would replace Harrigian at USAFE-AFAFRICA? I thought it was Guastella, but he's retiring. KingEdinburgh (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KingEdinburgh, Generals Kirk W. Smith, Warren D. Berry, and Lance K. Landrum would top my list. Neovu79 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LtGen Langley's promotion ceremony will be held on August 6, 2022, three days before he is due to assume command of AFRICOM on August 9. So which date is considered his official date of rank? SuperWIKI (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI if Langley's "promotion orders" state that his rank is effective on August 6th, then yes, that would be his date of rank. However, if the "promotion orders" makes no reference to his effective date of rank, then he has been frocked, and his official date of rank will be when he assumes command of AFRICOM. Neovu79 (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That depends if we even know that. The promotion ceremony would have to be livestreamed for us to know. What if it's not? SuperWIKI (talk)

If it's not livestreamed, then we should default to the date he assumed command. We can amend the date of rank later, if we find a source that states that August 6th is the effect date. Neovu79 (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydoke. Thanks! SuperWIKI (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI Lanley's effective date of rank is 6 August 2022. YouTube: Promotion ceremony for USMC Lt Gen Michael Langley. Neovu79 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

116 Stat. 2487 of the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act establishes a Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center and assigned the director the statutory grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral. Was this position, as a three-star office, ever actually established? Even if under a different name? I can't find any sort of evidence supporting an actual establishment. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI the position of director of the Test Resource Management Center was originally established as a civilian position via the above NDAA 2003 (10 U.S.C. § 4173) you just mentioned. The NDAA 2006 (Pub. L. 109–163 (text) (PDF)§ 902(b)), added the provision for a commissioned officer, in the three-star rank, to be allowed to service as the director. However, there is no indication that a commissioned officer has ever served as the director. Currently, the position is only held by a civilian. The NDAA 2017 (Pub. L. 114–328 (text) (PDF)§ 502(c)), struck the sentence that allowed a commissioned officer to serve in the position as well as the statutory three-star rank. Neovu79 (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to U.S. Representatives to the UN General Assembly, does Murthy's nomination to the WHO Board have to be confirmed by the Senate? That lack of Senate approval was why I didn't add it to the page. SuperWIKI (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SuperWIKI Yes, USREPWHO does have to be approved by the Senate. Three past ASHs served as USREPWHO as well as other high-ranking officials with medical backgrounds. ADM Brett Giroir was the last person to serve as USREPWHO. Here was his Senate confirmation. Neovu79 (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Quick question. Raymond's retirement ceremony was held in November 2022 but his official retirement date per his certificate of retirement is 1 January 2023. Should we use 2023 instead of 2022 for his service years? Thanks. KingEdinburgh (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since his official retirement date is 1 January 2023, we should use 2023 for his service years. Neovu79 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Civilian air patrol ranks are spammed on more rank pages as for example Technical sergeant,Master sergeant, Senior master sergeant, Chief master sergeant. And again with big undue weight as it is branch of so. 178.220.220.106 (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC) I have removed that about the CAP from that pages I hope someone wont restore that huge undue weight stuff. Cheers178.220.220.106 (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One user restoring it in Technical sergeant why I don't know but I don't want to edit war.178.220.220.106 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing JeffUK's justification, the user is not actually wrong. The article is about the rank as a whole and not solely focused on the U.S. uniformed services' use of the rank. I'm inclined to leave it there. Neovu79 (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need help identifying in this image. SuperWIKI (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: Admiral David L. McDonald. This image is already uploaded to Commons, under File:ADM McDonald, David Lamar (2).jpg. Neovu79 (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Neovu! SuperWIKI (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Enlisted Ranks and Insignia of the United States Navy/E/Blank has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A citation would be appreciated for your change of their final rank. --2001:999:484:1F72:8EEC:BB31:BC6:814D (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-caption in the infobox says "Highest rank achieved" not highest retired rank. Neovu79 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And? You still need to provide a citation for the rank of admiral. --2001:999:500:F779:3027:FE1B:E75C:4053 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the cited sources already in the articles.

For Chase it says, On September 17, 1930, with the accompanying rank of Admiral, he reported as Commander in Chief, United States Fleet, hoisting his flag in USS Texas.

For Schofield it says "New Commander-in-Chief of the Fleet, highest Naval officer afloat, is Admiral Frank Herman Schofield, whose appointment, announced last week, will become effective in September." You can also find more info in the Naval History and Heritage Command. Neovu79 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You also apparently don't understand that the Commander in Chief, United States Fleet was a four-star command, and was never a two-star command. Neovu79 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I did not know that, but I do know that changing details without any explanation is suspicious; edit summaries exist for a reason. Well, there is a citation now on both, so I guess things turned out alright in the end. --2001:999:500:F779:3027:FE1B:E75C:4053 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Neovu79! I've been following your nomination of this page. Here's some places where citations could be helpful. I'm preoccupied with proofreading and organizing the recent wave of two-star nominations so I won't be able to assist in detail; however, this may raise the quality of the page to convince reviewers.

The retirement for age subsection. Citations on dates of birth, year placed on active duty (which should be in their official service biographies), year they would have retired under standard limits (example: for Mullen, cite the version of the U.S. Code section he would've retired under in 2008. Append to that a note that Mullen was subject to this rule), date they assumed the office that placed them higher than retirement age (CJCS, CNGB, etc.) and the date they actually retired. Don't think there's a need to cite the exact age at which they retired if we have the start and end dates (WP:BLUE, if you think it counts as such).

• For example, Admiral Michael G. Mullen was born on 4 October 1946; placed on active duty in 1968 and promoted to admiral on 23 August 2003. Ordinarily, he would have been expected to retire at the end of his four-year term as chief of naval operations in 2008 after 40 years of service. Instead, he was reappointed as an admiral and appointed as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 1 October 2007. He retired from the Navy after serving two, two-year terms as chairman on 1 October 2011, at the age of 65 with 43 years of service and eight years in grade.
• General James F. Amos was born on 12 November 1946; placed on active duty in 1970 and promoted to general on 3 July 2008. Ordinarily, he would have been expected to retire at the end of his two-year term as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps in 2010 after 40 years of service. Instead, he was reappointed as a general and appointed as commandant of the Marine Corps on 22 October 2010. He retired from the Marine Corps after completing his four-year term as commandant on 17 October 2014, at the age of 67 with 44 years of service and six years in grade.
• General Frank J. Grass was born on 19 May 1951; enlisted in the Missouri Army National Guard in October 1969 and received his commission in 1981. He was appointed as a general in the active duty reserves and assigned as chief of the National Guard Bureau on 7 September 2012. He remained on reserve active duty until he completed his four-year term as chief and retired from the Army on 3 August 2016, at 65 years of age with 35 years in commissioned service, 47 years of total service, and four years in grade.

The promotion track subsection. Citations on year VADM was appointed to admiral, role their predecessor was re-assigned to, role their' predecessor was re-assigned to, and year their predecessor retired. Again, I don't think there's a need to cite the exact age at which they retired if we have the start and end dates (WP:BLUE, if you think it counts as such).

• For example, Vice Admiral Patrick M. Walsh was promoted to admiral and appointed as vice chief of naval operations in 2007. The incumbent vice chief, Admiral Robert F. Willard, was appointed as commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The incumbent Pacific Fleet commander, Admiral Gary Roughead, was appointed as commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, whose incumbent commander, Admiral John B. Nathman, received no further appointment and retired at the age of 59, with 37 years of service and three years in grade.
• Lieutenant General Gary L. North was promoted to general and appointed as commander of Pacific Air Forces in 2009. The incumbent Pacific Air Forces commander, General Carrol Chandler, was appointed as vice chief of staff of the Air Force, while the incumbent vice chief, General William M. Fraser III, was appointed as commander of Air Combat Command, whose incumbent commander, General John D. W. Corley, received no further appointment and retired at the age of 58, with 36 years of service and four years in grade.

The 60-day rule subsection. Same rules.

Four-star officers typically step down from their posts up to 60 days in advance of their official retirement dates. Officers retire on the first day of the month, so once a retirement month has been selected, the relief and retirement ceremonies are scheduled by counting backwards from that date by the number of days of accumulated leave remaining to the retiring officer. During this period, termed transition leave or terminal leave, the officer is considered to be awaiting retirement but still on active duty.

• For example, General Michael Hagee was relieved as commandant of the Marine Corps on 13 November 2006, and held his retirement ceremony the same day, but remained on active duty until his official retirement date on 1 January 2007.

The presidential waiver section. Same rules. Additionally, ADM Rickover is not an example of a presidential waiver at least from the text, it should be noted as such.

A statutory limit can be waived by the president with the consent of Congress if it serves national interest. However, this is extremely rare.

• For example, the record for the longest tenure in any service is held by General Lewis B. Hershey who enlisted in the Indiana Army National Guard in 1911 at the age of 18. He was called up for federal active duty during World War I, receiving a commission in 1916, and subsequently transferred to the regular army at the end of the war. He served in active duty in the Army until the age of 80 before being involuntarily retired in 1973 after 62 years of continuous service.
• Admiral Hyman G. Rickover is listed as serving for 63 years in the Navy from 1918 to 1982. However his service reflects a time when attending any military academy was considered active duty service due in part from World War I. In today's military rules and regulations, an officer who initially begins their career through a military academy does not begin their service until upon receiving their commission after graduation, even though they are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice while attending the academy.

SuperWIKI (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to fix up Ernest J. King and take it to GA and FAC, be my guest. My to-do list is far too long. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal works with me as well, as you are technically correct. The Navy did not have a one-star rank at the time. Thanks. Neovu79 (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jack Burns (American football coach) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neovu79! I'll be leaving for mandatory national service on 11 July, and will be in rotation for about 2 years. For at least the first two months of service, I will be in basic training. As such, until I transition to vocational training (which by nature of my physical standards will be clerical shift work), I won't be free to update and edit the usual pages as much as I used to during this two-month period.

So, if it doesn't inconvenience you and the other users I'm messaging, I just wanted to give notice on these issues and hope for your help in updating the usual Wikipedia articles as necessary. I thank you for the help.

P.S. Due to your personal scheduling issues, I just wanted to reassure you if you don't see frequent edits on the List of active duty United States four-star officers. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your opinion. Do you think Senator Tuberville's recent near-full year hold on military nominees warrants inclusion in the "Appointments" section of the three-star and four-star lists? If so, how should it be presented without excessively focusing on the subject? SuperWIKI (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Orbmilitaryranking0jj.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering if you have access to the 2024 or other recent editions of the U.S. World Almanac - to check the dates of rank of current four-star officers.

It's harder to purchase (even via Amazon - plus I'm only interested in a tiny part of the book) on my side of the world. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting comment on a potential information conflict per my response to your recent edit. SuperWIKI (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been watching events at the recent IISS Shangri-La Dialogue, and a session with ADM Paparo here (around 1:06:00 to 1:14:00) discusses the possibility of upgrading the U.S.-Japan defence partnership and raising U.S. Forces Japan to four-star level. What say you? SuperWIKI (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, RADM Hann will be promoted to VADM as the next NOAA deputy under secretary. SuperWIKI (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's an unexpected but pleasant surprise. Neovu79 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion on this - is this a full-time FORCM rank? SuperWIKI (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's interesting. Positional seniority in the enlisted ranks is a gray area. Some come with a unique rank insignia, and some don't. If the Coast Guard mirrors the Navy's hierarchy for force master chiefs, I'm assuming that the Coast Guard's force master chief will get an insignia similar to their area command master chiefs. Neovu79 (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I request your analysis here? I just found that Title 10, Section 526(b)(3) of the U.S. Code was repealed between 2023 and 2024, seemingly deleting the cap on joint duty three-star officers. Compare the May 2023 edition and latest edition. I (believe I) updated the overall general and flag officer strength levels early this year, but missed the aforementioned repeal.

Hopeful for your insights and suggestions here, as repeals like this may change other sections of Title 10 that are relevant to editing the military officer list articles. SuperWIKI (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]