Hi, I bought a bag about a month ago from a thrift store and am trying to figure out what it was used for and what the symbol on it means. The symbol looks very similar to the one RekonDog has posted. Can you tell me a little more about this symbol and what you think the bag might have been used for? It would be greatly appreciated. Here is a link to a photo of the bag:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31071478&l=26968312c7&id=59400770

Chriscollins1001 (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ChrisReply[reply]

Just wanted to drop you a line. I'll let you all know when I make it to Al Asad. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you read the Marine Corps Times lately? Force Recon companies are coming back in the near future. They danced around it, but the jist is: they are done rat-fucking Recon to build up MARSOC, so now they can start rebuilding the companies, seeded from the division Recon battalions. That's why the reserve unit never got deactivated like all the rest. Maybe you should re-enlist? :P bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judah was not a sub-monarchy to Israel. Read here how Jeroboam revolted from the Kingdom of Judah.

This template does not indicate that Saul was Davidic. It just lists the kings in historical order.--Carlaude ^(talk) 20:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saul, David, and Solomon were the Kings of Israel and of Judah thus the term "Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)" refers to the union of what is later called the "Kingdom of Israel (Samaria or Northern Kingdom)" and the "Kingdom of Judah"

Read David, the section "David made king":

"...the death of Saul and Jonathan is described in the closing chapter of 1 Samuel, then David goes up to Hebron, where he is anointed king over Judah; in the north, Saul's son Ish-Bosheth is king over the tribes of Israel.^[1]... Yet with the death of the son of Saul, the elders of Israel come to Hebron, and David is anointed King of Israel and Judah. Upon these events he is 30 years old.^[2]"

This is from 2 Samuel 2:1-10 and 5.--Carlaude ^(talk) 08:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, it's been a while since we last spoke and I thought I'd bother you with an irrelevant question! :D

In the Recon logo, there is what looks like a flame above the parachute with some sort of band wrapped around the base. Can you tell me what this is and what it means? It's been bugging me for a while. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that makes sense to me! Thanks. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought you'd enjoy reading this article: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/10/1m10marines231811-first-recon-challenge-puts-teams/?uniontrib

Cheers! bahamut0013^words_deeds 10:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! Certainly ambitious!!

Well, I would personally have thought that there wasn't much distinction between the Continental Marines and the American colonial marines, but after a bit of skimming, I realize that such a comparison would be analogous to comparing the Army to the National Guard. I think the title is fine as it stands.

I'm thinking, that with this huge plethora of information you plan on adding, you may wish to create United States Marine Corps in the Revolutionary War, and then summarize on the history article. This also allows us to expand in the future, to say United States Marine Corps in World War II and so on.

I can't really say that the yearly or monthly chronology really appeals to me, and I doubt it would be very popular to many others (free-form prose always has the appeal of being more "encyclopedic" and such). However, if we manage to expand this plot on to other wars, we could create an appendix article to the main history article, say, Timeline of United States Marine Corps history, or Chronology of United States Marine Corps history.

I like your template, but I sure seems incomplete as it stands. I wouldn't introduce it into the namespace until there is much more meat to it. I'm pretty knowledgable with template work, so let me know when you think you'd like to debut it and I will do some tweaking. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied from my talk page:

I've noticed that there are a number of articles regarding snipers in the Corps. I was wondering what you thought about consolidating [at least some] of these:

• Scout Sniper
• United States Marine Corps Scout (Tank) and Sniper Company
• STA platoon
• Scout Sniper Platoon

Unless there was a major change, I believe that the latter two are just different names for the same thing. Further, does the fact that each rifle battalion has one platoon mean that the platoon merits an article, or can we cover the sniper unit in the Scout Sniper article? I realize that the Scout & Sniper Company was a bit different (it had vehicles), and has much more of a historally relevant slant to it, but maybe it too could be merged under the "history" section. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So if I read you right, it seems that Scout Sniper Platoon can be merged into Scout Sniper? bahamut0013^words_deeds 08:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say yes, but you're the duty expert. That given, I'd like you to do the merge if you're not adverse. Have you ever looked over the Wikipedia:Merging and Help:Merging before? Given the overlap, and teh fact that the creating editors were probably unaware of the overlap into other articles, I don't think it would be too controversial to execute without a discussion. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you wish to remove it, that is your perrogative. I will not object to the rationale given. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent revisions to History of the United States Marine Corps‎ have stripped out a number of references, some of which are still being cited and now generating errors. I ask that you take a look at the previously stored versions and restore them. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recall you mentioned this before, I believe. For the most part, it is easiest for comprehension to simply point out highlights chronologically, and link to relevant articles to let interested readers branch out from there. It is true that sometimes it can get confusing when you have so many moving parts, but the article in question isn't supposed to make sense of it all; you really can't do that in one article. The best strategy is merely to give an overview, then get into more detail in sequential child articles. For example, World War II can be best though of as the parent of the two theaters, each of which had several campaigns, each of which had several battles/operations. The same with units: spell out the vital statistics: mission, type, history, and other pertinent data.

I think what you are getting at is really revising the normal approach at looking at history. While that might be worth exploring, I don't think that Wikipedia would be the best venue. It might be worth writing a letter to United States Marine Corps History Division, so see if they find some merit in such a thing. I also have immense respect for Kirill Lokshin; he is a fine military historian and could probably give you a better perspective than this ameteur (myslef) ever could. bahamut0013^words_deeds 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, at this point, that particular article is way too long, and it was that way before you added many kilobytes of text to the colonial and pre-Revolutionary War sections. I'm thinking about shifting much of it, honestly, to Continental Marines or perhaps splitting the entire mother articles into sub-articles by century or era or something like that. You can see that in the gradual expansions I've been making to it, I haven't touched WWII or Vietnam yet--specifically because I know they are gonna be huge. I've done most of the other eras.

Another reason I'm inclined to move the info to another article is just that they don't jive with the scope of the rest of the article. When you look at the level of detail of the Rev War section, it lists just about every engagement, big or small. Compare that to the rest of the article: detailing the engagement between two ships without some specific notability to the history of the Corps as whole throws the focus out of whack. This is why I really believe in the theory of building the web: the user can dig down to the level of detail he or she wants by clicking internal link(s) for the article that has more info (i.e. an overview of the Marines in the Gulf War shouldn't include all of the info from Battle of Khafji).

Talk to Kirill, I highly recommend it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings RECONDOG. My name is Sgt. James Moon. I am one of the founding members of the C.B.I.R.F. team. I worked along side CWO FISHBACK, Sgt Anderson, and Sgt Picola. We had alot of great moments setting up and getting established, this new concept that was long overdue. I am proud to see that it has come such a long way and see that it has grown to where it is today. Was doing a search for Marine Corps Insignia and came across your logo. I love it, GREAT work!!!... SEMPER FI !!! .....James Moon Sgt U.S.M.C. 1988-1998

I thought this may be useful for you (lots of great images): Recon wraps up comprehensive training before heading to sea. Hope all is well with you. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RekonDog, what do you think of this for the USA Parachutist image? http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/hires/AFG-100324-020.jpg Mikepolkfan (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And this one. http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/hires/afg_021203_084.jpg Mikepolkfan (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, do you want to upload, http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/hires/AFG-100324-020.jpg, as a new version or a separate image? Mikepolkfan (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Mikepolkfan (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Original Barnstar

I'm giving myself an award because no one cared about my contributions--pertinent articles I've created--except me. I afforded thousands of dollars on resources, materials, interviews with relic Marines, trips to the HistDiv and NARA, nose-diving in the documents of the USMC/Navy..to allow this free information to be passed on to readers. I pat myself on the back..good job! RekonDog (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Abraham ibn Ezra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tudela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear RekonDog, I have enjoyed referring to your article for a few years now. It is full of fascinating stuff. I have been so bold as to take a stab at plainer language for the initial paragraph. I intend to work through the article in a similar fashion and hope this meets with your approval and retains the original intent. Best regards,AmesJussellR (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear RekonDog, I have now messed with your article quite a bit. Though I expect you have moved on to different interests on wikipedia, I would be most grateful if you would review the article. I have intended to work through the article and retain the original intent. I hope the changes make sense to your understanding of the subject. Best regards,AmesJussellR (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RekonDog, you have set yourself rather an ambitious goal! I am interested in the eras you have chosen - they appear to make sense. I suppose a more conventional approach would have been a war by war outline. The strength of you approach is to describe the doctrinal assumptions - links to the various wars and interventions have probably mostly been done. Good luck! I look forward to reading more. AmesJussellR (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you still want this userbox? This comment was added a fairly long time ago, so I thought I'd ask you before creating the userbox. Smtchahal (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:FMFLANT.png. 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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever images that I had uploaded, which concerns the United States Marine Corps, are the official seal(s). I used Paint.NET to copy, replicate, or produce the images from the actual and official seals that are still presently active among the pertaining units that are within the United States Marine Corps. Any licensing will belong to the United States Marine Corps and Department of the Navy...whereas I served in the United States Marines myself. RekonDog (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Recon Training Co, SOI (West).png. 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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever images that I had uploaded, which concerns the United States Marine Corps, are the official seal(s). I used Paint.NET to copy, replicate, or produce the images from the actual and official seals that are still presently active among the pertaining units that are within the United States Marine Corps. Any licensing will belong to the United States Marine Corps and Department of the Navy...whereas I served in the United States Marines myself. RekonDog (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]