User talk:Cuprum17/Archive2015

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

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

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

Charles David Jr
Good Evening MKC,

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

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


 * Good evening, BM2 Matt K. Yes, I can change the name of the article, but I hesitate to do it until I know for sure that the name change actually passed muster. Someone on the cutter needs to tell the CG Historian's Office that the name of the cutter has been changed and they need to get the word out to us poor retired slobs that have the time to do this type of editing. This is very interesting to me and I would like to document the change in the article correctly by Wikipedia standards with the proper referencing. I'll be happy to make the change if I have something to go on. I'll do a little research and if I can find the right reference, I'll make the change without hearing from you again, otherwise I'm waiting to hear from you or the CG Historian's Office. Belay that...see last comment...


 * Thank you for your service and you get to work on that BM1 Servicewide Exam...you work too cheap and need a pay raise! When you make Chief, let me know and I'll sign a charge sheet for you! Semper Paratus! Cuprum17 (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Already done, BM2 and thanks for the heads up... Cuprum17 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USCGC Cape Horn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jones Beach. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Billard
Tks for catching the year-range thing -- temporary blindness... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, Mate! Cuprum17 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles D. Michel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meritorious Service Medal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Women in the United States Coast Guard
Could you please patrol my article Women in the United States Coast Guard since you liked it? Also I made Women in the United States Air Force if you feel like patrolling that. Thank you so much. Precience (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I make it a habit to patrol all Coast Guard related articles so that the service is presented an accurate and NPOV light. I started patrolling the article the minute that I was aware of its existence. Thank you for creating the article and if you want to create any more Coast Guard articles I would be delighted to patrol them also. As for the Air Force article, I will patrol it also, but there will probably be plenty of others involved in editing Air Force articles. I hope my edits to your new article helped and if you need advice on Coast Guard matters, I'm right here most days. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks! Precience (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Somebody already patrolled my Air Force article so you don't have to but thanks for offering. Precience (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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


 * It is my reading of PL 90-130 that it did not apply directly to the Coast Guard. The law only modifies the existing United States Code Titles 10 (Department of Defense mostly, except as applies to the Coast Guard Reserve.), 32 (National Guard), and 37 (Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services). The Coast Guard is unique among the armed forces and is mentioned specifically in Title 14 USC. It is not included in the Department of Defense but it is still on of the five armed services. The Coast Guard and its predecessor agencies have always resided outside the Department of Defense and it's predecessor agencies. Until 1966, the Coast Guard was a part of the Department of Treasury because it was historically a law enforcement agency and picked up military responsibilities at a later date. In 1966, the Coast Guard became a part of the newly formed Department of Transportation. The reasoning behind this move was that most of the missions of the Coast Guard related to the regulation of the maritime transportation industry. In 2003, The Coast Guard was transferred to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. There are exceptions to this; during declared wars or when the president directs, the Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of the Navy. (Law enacted in 1801, I think) So, in the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War; the predecessor of the Coast Guard, the United States Revenue Cutter Service served under the Secretary of the Navy. During World War I and World War II, the Coast Guard served under the Secretary of the Navy. During the Vietnam War, the Coast Guard as a whole wasn't under the control of the Navy, but did send cutters and crews to serve with the Navy. (Spoiler Alert...I wrote the article on Vietnam service.)


 * A couple of other things need to be mentioned for a better understanding about how the Coast Guard relates to the other armed services and the two other uniformed services. There are seven uniformed services in the United States. They consist of the armed services (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and the Coast Guard) plus two others; the U.S. Public Health Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps. Title 37 U.S. Code deals with pay and allowances of the uniformed services, meaning all seven services. The Coast Guard is included in the act to the extent that they do not have their own medical officers and rely on commissioned doctors, dentists, and nurses from the Public Health Service for medical care. One other thing. The Coast Guard Reserve at the time of the writing of PL 90-130 was intended to support the Navy in the event of a call up of the reserves under presidential Title 10 authority. This is why the CG Reserve is mentioned in the second line of the law.


 * Have I confused you enough? If you are concerned about women's service in the armed forces, I suggest that you check into the Public Health Service. This is because of the high percentage of women in the USPHS relative to it's total end strength, and because many of those women serve with the Coast Guard for at least a portion of their USPHS career. These would be all officers and they would be serving as doctors, dentists, and nurses. The Coast Guard does have its own enlisted Health Services Technicians which serve as independent-duty corpsmen at small Coast Guard units and cutters.


 * One other thought. Often times legislation that affects the other armed services is addressed later in similar legislation that brings the Coast Guard into line with the other armed services. Suggest some research on later laws possibly in the same general period of time.


 * I hope this has helped...if it confused, I am sorry. The Coast Guard is a complicated beast, but one that I served with proudly for 18 of my 24 year military career. If I can help you in any way please let me know...and thank you for your interest in the Coast Guard and it's women members. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! It was very helpful. Precience (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't Ask Don't Tell?
Did Don't Ask Don't Tell and its repeal apply to the Coast Guard? Thank you. Precience (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good question. The short answer is that it didn't affect the Coast Guard directly because the underlying legislation (10 U.S.C. § 654) was a Title 10 bill which had to do with the funding of Department of Defense programs. However, it did influence the Coast Guard to the extent that the Coast Guard Reserve at that time was funded in whole by the Department of Defense. I was a Coast Guard reservist at the time and do recall getting training on DADT policy on an annual basis for several years. The training consisted of about an hour of handouts and Powerpoint presentations on DADT issues usually presented by an officer sent specifically for that purpose to our reserve unit. Sexual harassment training was also conducted at the same block of instruction and was also a one hour block of instruction given on an annual basis. I recall that there were few problems in our reserve group with the instruction as most took the instruction at face value. I can't tell you what kind of training the active duty Coast Guardsmen received because at that time I was not around very many of them. Incidentally, the term "Coast Guardsman" is the proper term for those persons serving with the Coast Guard, male or female. Most reservists had civilian employers with much of same policies as DADT, so we were mostly familiar with the concept anyway. We did have one woman reservist that we all knew was lesbian, but she never made an issue with it and no one ever gave her grief over it mostly because she performed her duties just like everyone else. Had she or any of the other reservists made an issue of her sexual orientation, then she would have been dismissed from the service. We all knew this and kept quiet about the situation. Other than the silence on the issue, she didn't receive any special favors nor were any expected by her. She had 14 years in on a required 20 years of creditable service and no one wanted her to lose her retirement. Although we all knew her to be lesbian, there was never a hint of her sexual orientation during duty hours, which is as it should have been. Last I heard of her she had retired from the reserves and was living with her girlfriend in Charleston, SC. That has been at least 10 years ago. Personally, I was impressed with her deportment during the time I served with her because during off duty times when the some of the unit would go out on liberty, she would bring her girlfriend with her just like I would sometimes bring my wife. A good time was had by all. On duty, she was all business.


 * The long answer is I am sure that there was identical Title 14 (Coast Guard) legislation to the Title 10 legislation that was the basis for DADT, but I can not give you a cite for it's existence. Obviously the Coast Guard did follow DADT. I suggest a search of 1994 laws to find ones that deal with the Coast Guard and then look at the provisions of the law in the contents section of the bill to find what you are looking for. The legislation you would want to look for would be dealing with the funding of the Department of Transportation. I wish I could be more helpful on this. I will, if time allows, do some research on this and if I find anything relating to the DADT or sexual harassment issues, I will get in touch. Have an nice rest of the weekend. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Precience (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil Air Patrol
Hello. Earlier, an IP user updated the membership numbers of the Civil Air Patrol and you reverted the edit with the comment "not what source says. Update citation to update numbers." I'm not sure if you noticed, but the update did include a new access date to the source. So I'm wondering if there was more to your concern? Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 02:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A new access date on a citation doesn't change the citation or the information that is intended to be conveyed by using that citation. I didn't actually check the reference at the time I reverted, but upon reading your question I did and discovered that the reference used is a registration page for CAP personnel and doesn't actually say anything. This is not a proper reference as far as Wikipedia suggests and certainly doesn't support any personnel numbers for the CAP article. I would suggest that a different reference be used to cite numbers.


 * As for your question about having "more to your concern?" You seem to intimate that I have a problem with the Civil Air Patrol itself. I do not have a problem with the CAP and support its efforts to educate young persons about aeronautics and the CAP mission of search and rescue. I was a CAP cadet from 1963 to 1965 while I was in high school and much of the training I received from the cadet program transferred to the beginnings of my military career when I enlisted in the Army in 1966. Basic military courtesies and drill were part of my instruction and were applicable to any military service. I patrol the CAP article to help reduce vandalism on a good article. It doesn't happen often, but if I catch edits that reduce the value of the article, I do revert. Thank you for your interest, and I suggest that the first two citations in the article need some work to accurately cite information in the article. These are the two cites that need a better reference:


 * 33,656 senior members (as of 31 May 2015) 23,607 cadets (as of 31 May 2015)


 * The "Eservices" page used as a reference doesn't convey any information about the actual numbers of senior members or cadets and requires a Wikipedia reader to register to find the information which is not desirable. I would suggest a better reference be located and cited. I look forward to seeing the reference corrected, if not by you then perhaps someone else. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize if the question seemed to imply any particular concern -- my intent was to ask if there was a concern not mentioned, not assume or imply something in particular. You answered the question by stating you have a concern with the source used to update the information.  I can understand that concern, but in this case I don't think it is warranted.  Before I get into the explanation of why the eServices site is appropriate for obtaining membership numbers and other numerical data about the Civil Air Patrol, I want to mention that it is used in the Civil Air Patrol Wing Infobox template.  In other words, it is used on every single CAP wing article on Wikipedia.


 * The controlling policies for this source are WP:SOURCEACCESS which states that a source should not be rejected just because it is hard to access or sits behind a paywall, along with the WP:ABOUTSELF exception to the rules on self-published sources. Access to the eServices site is intended for CAP members only (which I am not, but I've seen it) and, for those logged in, the citation links directly to the information.  The information is updated regularly with end-of-month data.  The membership numbers are not of enough interest to mainstream media to be published elsewhere very regularly (and when they are published, they are rounded to the nearest thousand, while eServices gives the exact count), nor are they exceptional claims.  I suspect the only reason this information is in the members-only portion of the CAP websites is because they don't realize that there are interested individuals outside of their organization, and it is a convenient place for members to find the info (along with all the other stuff they access there).


 * Finally, the change you reverted was by an IP user. The version you reverted back to was by the same IP user.  I'm guessing it is a member who has access to the eServices site and was just updating the info after noticing the information and citation was a couple of months out of date.  Regards, Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 21:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Mexican war units
It looks like you're gonna be busy with this list for a while, so I'm removing it from the assessment requests. I'll be happy to look at it again when you're finished. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are right about that list; it will be a bit or two...or three. I understand about the removal and I appreciate your offer to look at it when it is ready. I was just going to add one section to the list that I felt was missing...oh, well... Cuprum17 (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary
I noticed you did a few good edits to the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary article. I created WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary if your interested in joining. COASTIE I am (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United States military and volunteer units in the Mexican–American War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Conner. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A-class review
G'day, mate, hope you are well. Regarding this edit: ... do you wish for the review to be closed? If so, I can unleash the Milhist bot for you and archive the page. I know the process can at times be frustratingly slow, but eventually someone will come around and offer another review if you stick with it. Anyway, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Cuprum17. I had been thinking of dropping you a note about this also but got sidetracked yesterday watching the test match. I can certainly understand your frustration at the slowness of the process, unfortunately the number of reviewers at ACR has been on the decline for a while. In the past we applied a strict 28 day period to ACRs; however, as a result of the limited number of regular reviewers we haven't applied time limits for the last few years (this seems to have occurred through general consensus over time among the co-ordinators rather than any formal discussion that I am aware of, although I could be wrong). As such if you did want to continue with the review there is nothing stopping you from doing so as far as I know (and I agree with Rupert that another reviewer is likely to come along at some point). For what it is worth I thought the article was already of a high standard when you nominated it so I don't think you need to be disappointed with your efforts. There are certainly countless articles on very worthy topics that are in far worse condition! I for one found it to be a very interesting addition to the encyclopedia and I'm sure numerous anonymous readers have too. Reference the image review I cannot help but feel I probably let you down there - unfortunately like many editors I just do not understand enough about copyright to provide informed advice about it (I've often found myself fairly frustrated by our image policies if truth be told). By chance do you know of any other editors active in this area (USCG history, or the Vietnam War in general)? Perhaps you might consider approaching them directly to see if they would be willing to review the article? That said if you do wish to take a break from Wikipedia for a bit I can certainly understand that too (we all need to do that sometimes). All the best whatever you decide to do. Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The drop in the numbers of ACR reviewers could probably be the result of not doing enough to cultivate each new crop of editors that come knocking on the door of the Project. I'm not blaming you. You have been more than gracious to me in explaining what needs to be done to an article and why. I feel all your suggestions were spot on and I understand why each had to be made. I was not referring to you when I said that the cooperation of the image review person was what I considered unhelpful. It has been explained to me that anything that is on the official Coast Guard Historian's Office website is in the public domain unless otherwise credited to another entity or person. Do they always know who and when a picture was taken? In a word, no...they were lucky to even have a picture taken, let alone preserved. No budget for picture takers and no budget for someone to properly care for and catalog all the historical artifacts that have been collected. Thanks for your review and we will see what happens now that the article is back on the ACR page. Thanks, mate... Cuprum17 (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope that you don't mind me reverting your blanking of the review - regardless of what happens, it's good to maintain a record of comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what is best for the Project and you are right in the revert. I was not familiar with the process so I put the information in my sandbox. I was somewhat upset (to put it mildly) and so I did what seemed logical at the time. Thanks for your concern. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't unnecessarily rewrite references -- it misleadingly lights up diffs, like a christmas tree, when the article's intellectual content remains unchanged.
Please don't unnecessarily rewrite references, as you did here, it misleadingly lights up diffs, like a christmas tree, masking when the article's intellectual content has been changed. Geo Swan (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merely trying to introduce some sort of uniform system out of the mish-mash of citations that were in the article. As the article is only a start class, it is rather open to debate as to whether the previous "Reference" section was adequate for further development of the article to B-class. I don't take ownership of the article as you apparently do. I am finished with it; my attempt was only to improve the looks and readability of the citations and referenced used in the article and because I have a deep interest in all things relating to the U.S. Coast Guard. If you think you can improve the article further then go for it. If you don't improve it further, I'll always think it was because you hate having your edits changed. Just my opinion, of course...because it is my talk page. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Well, I am not taking ownership of it either.


 * Do you know how diffs work? They show how an article has changed, between two different revisions.  Unnecessary changes to how the metadata is formatted, which most rewriting of references are  -- seriously erode the usefulness of diffs.


 * Different contributors have different ideas of how to format references. Some people prefer the place the entire ref on one line model.  I prefer the one field per line model, because it is easier to see when there is a syntax error, easier to read in general.  But I only rewrite really bad references.  When I want to add archiveurl fields to a reference someone else wrote in the all fields on one line model, I make the extra effort to add the new fields, while keeping it in the all fields on one line model, specifically so my changes don't misleading light up the diffs like a christmas tree.


 * I'd like to be able to expect other contributors to show the same respect to the whole project.


 * I do rewrite references written to use bare-urls, that don't use the cite template. Changes to the references seem to have been made by someone who wasn't really familiar with how references work.  They didn't seem to realize that  pairs can enclose templates, like a cite template.  The result was that there were two parallel, redundant sets of references.


 * Weren't you the one who made this newbie mistake?


 * There is a principle, in engineering. If you are not a kid I am sure you have heard it before: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".  Whoever thought they were "fixing" the perfectly functional references I originally contributed did so ignoring this wise principle.


 * I used to place my references within the body of the article. A couple of years ago I started to place them at the end, withing a Reflist template, to make it less tempting for those so inclined to unnecessarily rewrite them.


 * I strongly encourage you to continue to work on the intellectual content of articles, and not try to regularize the internal structure of the article's metadata. Geo Swan (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

COGUARDRON One
Just seen your old appeal to other contributors for a third A-Class reviewer. I'm glad you found one. If you need help, like a reviewer in future, regards USCG activities in Vietnam, please sing out. Also, should you wish, could you give me a full list as possible of all the U.S. naval activities (mostly support) in the Saigon area? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll keep your offer in mind about reviews. I will need to do a little research into naval shore activities in and around Saigon and get back with you. I have a source or two in mind but I'm going to have to dig a little to come up with any specifics. Thank you for your kind offer of assistance about reviews. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)