McChizzle

File permission problem with File:Gambrill State Park-Civilian Conservation Corps Statue.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gambrill State Park-Civilian Conservation Corps Statue.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This statue is one of a series of "CCC Worker Statues". The statue at Gambrill State Park is number 58 in the list. Since no sculptor is identified on the plaque, calling the park's office might be a good way to identify the sculptor and the copyright holder of the statue.

--~2025-36331-98 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I have uploaded hundreds of my photos to Commons using the Template:PD-user to give permissions for the use of my photos. Other than the content of the image being a problem, I don't see an issue. Regardless there is already an image of this statue from Gambrill State Park in Commons, so given the concerns, I will ask that this image be deleted. --McChizzle (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The photo on Commons doesn't show the plaque. Further, your photo shows greenery and a flag, so it is much more interesting. --~2025-36434-18 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I contested the speedy deletion, because the photo on Commons would have the same copyright status. Either they should both be allowed, or they should both be deleted. --~2025-36434-18 (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I tagged both on here and on commons. In general, images of artworks need permission of the artist and sometimes also permission of the photographer (depending on whether the photo itself adds copyrightable content beyond the artwork). In some countries like the UK and Canada, there is freedom of panorama allowing anyone to take and use photographs of sculptures displayed in public places; for a photo of a sculpture in such a country, we would only need permission of the photographer. But these are in the US and US copyright law does not include freedom of panorama for public artworks. Feel free to nominate the other photo on commons for deletion for the same reason. Many images on commons have dubious licenses, so the existence of another image on commons is not strong evidence that the artwork can be freely licensed.

I see that User:JBW has deleted the local copy of the file per WP:CSD#F8 but while I don't think this is really problematic in this case I also don't think that it is a valid F8 deletion. F8 deletions should only happen when an image is properly licensed on commons and I don't think this one was. In fact, that's how I encountered this image: I was going through the images tagged for F8 speedy deletion as having been moved to commons, but I did not think it was eligible for F8 because I believed the license to not be valid. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The plaque doesn't identify the sculptor. However, the plaque clearly states that the statue was "Dedicated by Maryland Free State Chapter 113, Civilian Conservation Corps Legacy".

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say if that means "Civilian Conservation Corps Legacy" is the copyright holder. However, their web site has a "Contact Us" web page.

--~2025-36434-18 (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, David Eppstein, Thank you for pointing that out. I have restored the file and re-deleted it under criterion G7. I hope that's OK, but of not please let me know. JBW (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

As noted above, there is a fair use exception. Simply add Template:Non-free 3D art to the image page. See, also Template:Non-free use rationale.

It might be simpler to upload the image again with the Wikipedia:File_upload_wizard and select the "Upload a non-free file" option.

--~2025-36329-15 (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There are numerous examples of images of sculptures on WP that have a fair use rationale. Here are two from the List of public art in Manhattan: Charging Bull, Fearless Girl. --~2025-36329-15 (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

US Army divisions changes

FYI:

• MQ-1C Gray Eagle companies have been inactivated.
• Combat Aviation Brigade air cavalry squadrons are being inactivated this December
• Division Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion are being merged with their division's DIVARTY Headquarters and Headquarters Battery to form a Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, which falls under DIVARTY.

Best regards, noclador (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Cool! The HHB effort sounds strange. Can you provide any links to DoD articles related to all this? --McChizzle (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

SSI vs DUI

I saw you recently edited two Civil Affairs Brigades to focus on their DUI at the top of their infobox vs. their SSI as all Civil Affairs Brigades pretty much use the same SSI. I feel that it hurts consistency when looking at other units of the same size on Wikipedia, but I also see what you're saying that it's too generic. This isn't a criticism or even a discussion per se, but do you think this is a result of the Army deprioritizing brigades and reprioritizing Divisions and other larger formations? TexasBob85 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out for a discuss, TexasBob85.

If you look at unconventional US Army unit pages—such as the 1st SFC(A) and its subordinate groups/brigades—if a unit has its own SSI, it gets prominently highlighted because it is specific to their current heraldry. These wiki pages are specific to a unit and should highlight that unit's current and then former heraldry, in my opinion. Every unit is subordinate to a higher headquarters, which are also highlighted in their infobox.

USACAPOC is a unique Army Reserve command. As I understand the command decision of the day, USACAPOC felt the reserve units it was now in charge of were isolated and did not see themselves as part of the bigger picture. Right or wrong, the command decided that all subordinate USACAPOC units are to wear that command's SSI to set a permanent reminder of who they belong to and their greater mission.

USACAPOC subordinate unit's wear of the USACAPOC SSI predates the US Army's reorganization for near-pear competition, refocusing on division-level maneuver warfare, as they did during the Cold War.

Do you have information/documentation that would contradict what I experienced while serving within USASOC? If so, I would love to read it for just because I was their does not mean I know all the "five Ws."

Regards, --McChizzle (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I see the same thing with AMC (Army Materiel Command) and their ARNG brigades did a similar thing as well. See the 402 Army Field Support Brigade through the 412th Contracting Brigade. I'll make it a priority to do what you did with the USACAPOC brigades and feature their brigade crests instead of the AMC patch. Thanks for the info and the discussion. TexasBob85 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Ranger tab, Special Forces tab

ri.ng.mil *Army Regulation 600–8–22 Effective 19 February 2024, page 92, Chapter 8 Badges and Tabs Section I Badges and Tabs Overview, 8–2. Types of badges, e. See DA Pam 670–1 for the order of precedence of combat and special skill badges authorized for wear on the Army uniform. Bastruk (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

And stop uploading rasted graphic as fake svg Bastruk (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That is for wear on the uniform, which is different, not the order of precedence as an award/badge/tab. That standalone precedence is defined by AR600-8-22. --McChizzle (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Good afternoon,

In accordance with DA PAM 670-1 para 22-16b.(3c): "There is no precedence for combat or skill badges within the same group." This policy also extends to special skill tabs. Thanks

v/r

Kenicky J. H*****

SFC, USA

Uniform Policy Senior NCO,

Directorate of Military Personnel Management (DMPM)

300 Army Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310-0300

Office: (703) 695-7948

Uniform Policy:

usarmy.pentagon.hqda-dcs-g-1.mbx.uniform-policy(at)army.mil

Command Policy:

usarmy.pentagon.hqda-dcs-g-1.mbx.command-policy(at)army.mil

Religious Accommodations:

usarmy.pentagon.hqda-dcs-g-1.mbx.religious-accommodations(at)army.mil

[cid:image001.png(at)01DCD645.9FDAB3F0]

[cid:image002.png(at)01DCD645.9FDAB3F0]

BE ALL YOU CAN BE

From: K******** S***** <k****.s*****(at)gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 7:53 PM

To: USARMY Pentagon HQDA DCS G-1 Mailbox Uniform Policy <usarmy.pentagon.hqda-dcs-g-1.mbx.uniform-policy(at)army.mil>

Subject: Re: Order of precedence of combat and special skill badges - [UNCLASSIFIED]

You don't often get email from k****.s*****(at)gmail.com. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

Dear Sir or Madam,

As per guidance from Ms. B****, I'm contacting AR 670-1 proponent for additional guidance about order of precedence between Ranger Tab, Special Forces Tab, and Sapper Tab. Are these considered equal in precedence (as indicated in Group 4 of DA Pam 670-1), or does the Ranger Tab take precedence over the Special Forces Tab, as suggested by Table 8-1 in AR 600-8-22?

Kind regards,

K******** S*****

UNCLASSIFIED

Please contact the proponent of AR 670-1 for additional guidance.

usarmy.pentagon.hqda-dcs-g-1.mbx.uniform-policy(at)army.mil

Very respectfully,

Ms. B****

Policy Specialist

Awards and Decorations Branch

U.S. Army Human Resources Command

ATTN: AHRC-PDP-A, DEPT 480

The Awards and Decorations Branch

1600 Spearhead Division Ave.

Fort Knox, KY 40122-5504

https://www.hrc.army.mil/TAGD/Awards%20and%20Decorations%20Branch

-----Original Message-----

From: K******** S***** <k****.s*****(at)gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 3:41 PM

To: USARMY Ft Knox HRC Mailbox TAGD Awards <usarmy.knox.hrc.mbx.tagd-awards(at)army.mil>

Subject: Order of precedence of combat and special skill badges

[You don't often get email from k****.s*****(at)gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to respectfully request clarification regarding the order of precedence of combat and special skill badges.

Specifically, I would like to ask about the precedence between the Ranger Tab, Special Forces Tab, and Sapper Tab. Are these considered equal in precedence (as indicated in Group 4 of DA Pam 670-1), or does the Ranger Tab take precedence over the Special Forces Tab, as suggested by Table 8-1 in AR 600-8-22?

To clarify, I am inquiring about award precedence, not precedence related to the manner of wear.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I would greatly appreciate any clarification you can provide.

Kind regards,

K******** S*****

UNCLASSIFIED Bastruk (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I've only dotted names and changed @ to (at) to not trigger safety filter, but that's the conversation I've had with branches responsible for awards and decorations, cheers -- Bastruk (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Bastruk, wear, defined in DAPAM 670-1, is not the same as award precedence, defined in AR 600-8-22. Why are you doubting the precedence of various Army tabs that are clearly defined in the AR? As for wear on the uniform, unit tabs and the President's Hundred Tab are the only ones defined as being worn below skill tabs, such as Special Forces, Ranger, etc. Otherwise skill tabs are worn on the left shoulder in any order that the soldier wants. However, Army tradition is to wear the Special Forces Tab above others on the left shoulder. Again, manner of wear is not the same as award precedence. --McChizzle (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Because every table in AR 600-8-22 specifies "see table X–Y for order of precedence" except Table 8-1, and because Table 8-1 does not include numerical precedence like the other tables/lists, it should be interpreted differently. Additionally, Chapter 8 clearly states: "See DA Pam 670–1 for the order of precedence of combat and special skill badges". The phrase "authorized for wear" that follows does not mean the precedence applies only to wear, it indicates that DA Pam 670–1 lists badges that are authorized for wear, meaning it does not include badges that are not authorized.

You are overinterpreting a single table while ignoring multiple statements that direct badges to be grouped into a single precedence category. I even took the time to contact the Awards and Decorations Branch and asked, in a neutral manner, about the right order of precedence. I received a clear response: "Please contact the proponent of AR 670-1" and "There is no precedence for combat or skill badges within the same group. This policy also extends to special skill tabs".

"8–4. To whom awarded a. See table 8–1 for a list of U.S. Army combat and special skill badges authorized and who may be awarded each badge." As stated, Table 8-1 lists badges and identifies who may be awarded each one, nothing more, nothing less. Please consider the wording carefully.

"7–10. U.S. Army unit decorations description a. The following U.S. Army unit decorations, in order of precedence [..]:" followed by a numbered list (1), (2), (3), etc.

"6–8. See paragraphs 6–5 through 6–7 when multiple devices are awarded and AR 670–1 for proper wear" - Here, “AR 670–1 for proper wear” is clearly different wording than what is used in Chapter 8 regarding tabs.

"3–3. b. See table 3–1 for listing of individual awards in order of precedence" and then "Table 3 – 2 Decorations listed in order of precedence" again, explicit wording.

"3–2. See table 3–1 for listing of decorations in order of precedence." Same pattern.

"Table 1 – 2 Decorations listed in order of precedence"

There is a consistent pattern throughout AR 600-8-22: whenever the Army intends to present items in order of precedence, it uses explicit and specific wording. In contrast, they intentionally use different wording for Table 8-1 and for combat and special skill badges. This distinction exists because these badges are treated differently-they are grouped into precedence categories rather than assigned a strict numerical order like other awards. Bastruk (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The tradition of wearing the SF Tab above the Ranger exists mainly for practical reasons-because the SF Tab is longer, it is easier to stack them neatly by placing it above the shorter Ranger Tab -- Bastruk (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Bastruk, You need to take this to a talk page for an article where you disagree with the use of Table 8-2 in AR 600-8-22 (awards) and make your argument that DAPAM 670-1 (wear) should be followed instead. I too once thought as you do. It was another Wikipedian, another former soldier, that should me my error and walked me through AR 600-8-22. So there are more than just myself you need to convince to ignore Table 8-2 in the AR and follow uniform wear instead.

Good job on reaching out to the Army for clarification. Note the response you reference is pushing you to talk to someone focused on wear not awards, so of course they are going to tell you want DAPAM 670-1 states as the answer because wear on the uniform is what they focus on (their lane in the road). What does the AR 600-8-22 maintainer have to say about this topic?

AR 600-8-22, Table 8-2 is clear. It defines the first column in that table of badges as "Order of precedence." Ignoring the AR's table because you disagree with how it is formatted is "overinterpreting," as you put it.

Again, take this to the appropriate talk page to get group input on whether a US Army regulation or US Army pamphlet should be followed in military awards infoboxes. --McChizzle (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

List of United States Coast Guard ratings

Something got away from me with the article List of United States Coast Guard ratings. More happened with the reversion than I intended and I apologize. What I intended to correct was your removal of the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard rating badge. The job description and the rating badge is completely different than area master chief's and force master chief's job descriptions and responsibilities. Yes, all master chiefs are in the E-9 pay grade but there is only one Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard and his billet is different than all other master chiefs and he has a different rating badge. Please examine the articles United States Army enlisted rank insignia, United States Marine Corps rank insignia, List of United States Navy enlisted rates, and United States Air Force enlisted rank insignia. Each of these articles display the senior enlisted grade insignia separately from other E-9 pay grade billets and slots. Any other changes to the article edits that you had previously made were unintentional on my part and I admit that I erred in my reversion. I would request that you add back the Master Chief of the Coast Guard rating badge to the article as it is a unique rating badge of the Coast Guard. Again, my apologies. Semper Paratus! Cuprum17 (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries, Cuprum17. I removed the MCPOCG example for the rating badge used in the middle of the rank is the same as the Area/Force/Reserve CMC's and since the article is about those center insignia and what they represent, I was starting to think it was redundant; note that I debated adding the MCPOCG rate and rating when I initially created at example table and continue to wonder if it is duplicative. Regardless, I will re-add it.

Take care and stay safe, Cuprum17. --McChizzle (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, again, sorry about my fumble. I note that you were awarded the Coast Guard Star back in 2017 by me. That would have been one of my first awards of the Star as the award was only commissioned by me in 2016. It has been awarded only 12 times total in the 10 years of it's existence. You can be proud... you stay safe. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Military Freefall Parachutist Badge

Thanks for catching that. I think I have restored most of them and I'm just double-checking. I completely forgot to uncheck a box. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 20:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)