User talk:FOX 52: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:26, 20 September 2017

Welcome FOX 52!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,212,146 users!

Hello, FOX 52. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Arctic Kangaroo, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't vandalize

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Sincerely, Arctic Kangaroo 16:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

Arctic Kangaroo 16:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some helpful Pages:

- Yorkshiresoul (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FOX 52, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi FOX 52! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, FOX 52. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by hajat vrc @ 04:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, FOX 52. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, FOX 52. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —teb728 t c 01:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback

Hello, FOX 52. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Thanks

For the cake! Glad my additions were helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, FOX 52. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲‍水 00:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

A cookie for you!

Hello FOX 52, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers!

Arctic Kangaroo 15:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocopter EC145

Please, before revert again use the talk. I don't think is useful revert any unreferenced statement and a photo isn't a RO. Please read WP:3RR too. Assianir (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing something off Wikipedia is not allowed, per WP:CIRCULAR, and I may challenge it at any time WP:PROVEIT FOX 52 (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a fact is a fact and the photograph it is not a RO or WP:CIRCULAR but a primary source. I tried to explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source. Could you do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced? if i'm not enough persuasive maybe we can use WP:3 Assianir (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, FOX 52. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ushau97 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

image cleanup

Heya FOX, I saw your edit to 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) and I was wondering if you do requests for converting images to svg format.. because I know of a few military emblems I've been wondering about. Anywho, Cheers! — -dainomite 03:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm just starting to dive into it a little bit, so go ahead and send over you've got. - I'll see what I can do FOX 52 (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh awesome! I wish I knew how to do it, I'm not sure what makes things easier or more difficult for converting the images. These have always been on my "to-do" list for if I ever figured it out though.

Thanks a ton, I appreciate it! No rush of course. If there's anything I can help you out with please don't hesitate to ask. Regards, — -dainomite 04:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem they look pretty straight forward FOX 52 (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Well Done !!!! Perumalism Chat 19:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

You do beautiful graphic work! Do you take requests?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, if you have any more request you can either noted here, or for a faster response try the Graphics Lab - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're Scouting emblems in need of cleanup. The GL normally doesn't like to take them because they are thought to be akin to logos. Really it's better to have a nice version of the badge than a crude one. Might you be willing? Thanks for the fast reply!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok can you put a link to it here? FOX 52 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! Uh, the panel under the tailfeathers has now turned the deeper gold, tho'. No rush, when you get a chance.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Japan, it's perfect!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really really really really really really perfect, and I mean it this time!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Morocco, it's perfect!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Central African Republic, it's perfect!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Peru, it's perfect, and must have been way harder because of the weird shading!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Congo, it's perfect!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Greek Orthodox, it's perfect!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Jamboree 1971, it's perfect!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Tuvalu, it's perfect!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Tonga, it's perfect!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have pass on that one, my apologies I have a few other things on right now - Am sure one of the guys from the Graphics Lab can knock it out for you - Regards FOX 52 (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you again so much for your help on the others, you do such beautiful work! I have included you in our Recognitions section, and you've helped out so much!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for having a look at these!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll see what I can do FOX 52 (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating images

Thanks for the image work. When replacing a non-free image, would you tag the old file page using {{Di-orphaned fair use}} so it doesn't have to get tagged as unused. The easy way to do this is to use:

{{subst:or-fu-re|xxx}}. replacing xxx with the new file name. -- Gadget850^talk 18:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo an edit?

Why did you undo an edit I made to the List of Mil Mi-8/17 operators article? It was factually correct. An explanation would be appreciated. Dreddmoto (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation was given in the edit summary - Adding or changing content should be verified by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you do not cite a change, I may challenge it per WP:PROVEIT - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia itself count as a reliable source? Dreddmoto (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no you cannot use Wikipedia - see: WP:CIRCULAR for more help - FOX 52 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the edit is easily verified.

First, the Iran section lists an Islamic Republican Army as an Mil Mi-8/17 operator. I simply modified this to the name that is generally known and accepted, "Islamic Republic of Iran Army". There is nothing questionable or controversial about that. Even wikipedia's own article about Iran's army, clearly gives "Islamic Republic of Iran Army" as the name of that particular, armed force. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Army I do not see anything wrong with making an edit to show that. Secondly, the only other part of my edit was to add the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy as an Mil Mi-8/17 operator. This is true and hardly a secret. Even wikipedia's own article about the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, mentions this, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Navy If you look at the section of it titled Islamic Republic of Iran Navy Aviation, you can see that it includes Mil Mi-17. If you look at the section of it titled Procurement of naval equipment, it has a paragraph that starts with During 2000 Iranian Naval Aviation significantly improved its capability by taking delivery from Russia, of a number of Mi-8 AMT (Mi-171) transport/attack helicopters. It is a fact that Iran's navy is also an operator Mi-17s.

If you did not know these things, that's okay. You can just ask about them. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort so, different people each contribute to it and work together on articles. If you did not know whether my edit was factually correct, you could just have asked. I would be willing to answer such a query. I have no problem doing so. Is all this enough now, to accept the edit? --Dreddmoto (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again you cannot use Wikipedia as a source - please read WP:CIRCULAR. Also just because you tell me something is true, doesn't make it so. - We call that Original Research which is not a source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources - FOX 52 (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just because I say so, it's because you can see it for yourself, if you look. If I find other sources, where exactly should I post them? In the edit summary? In the article? --Dreddmoto (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lennart Meri Tallinn Airport logo

Found the logo in far better resolution on the official Facebook page of the Tallinn Airport

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=376152939113911&set=a.347549325307606.87265.154003814662159&type=1&theater

Also, the neck of the current svg-version is obviously too long. Could you please remake the logo using the given image above? Anyway, thanks for the work. 129.69.21.134 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - FOX 52 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bell 212

I know from my sources that the Serbian police uses Bell 212 helicopter it even says so in the Serbian police wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weljash (talk • contribs) 22:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then cite your sources as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thank you for the work you did on the Inchdrewer Castle floor plans! I don't know how I stumbled across the Graphics Lab but I'm sure I'll be using it again at some point as the assistance given has been brilliant! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you#2!

Azerbaijan is great! It may be my browser, but does the emblem seem slightly left-of-center in the ring?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and adjust accordingly - FOX 52 (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK you were right, it needed a kick to the right - sorry for the slip up - FOX 52 (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and no problem! You're making these so much better! Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a favor if you can

If/when you have time, can you merge the two images at Fédération du Scoutisme Tchadien into a single graphic? Thanks for looking!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah in a SVG? - FOX 52 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please! Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Both are great! Purple is what I had in mind! Thank you so much!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Jack Bauer font from 24. ;) I say it looks just as nice without it, and most emblems don't have text.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you so much! Forgot to tell you at the time...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea recognition map

i updated your map as per request on Graphics_Lab please check for errors. thank you.--DLommes (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

looks fine to me - FOX 52 (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for PLAAF low visibility roundel

Hi FOX 52, the actual photo of Xian H-6 bombers with PLAAF low visibility roundel can be seen from here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. --Ericmetro (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that'll work, in the future it's a good idea to include a image source - FOX 52 (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got the message

Hey FOX 52, I've seen the image, it's good I see you have placed (L to R) maroon, black and green. The text isn't similar to the one on the album cover, so it could be possible to make it similar. ///EuroCarGT 20:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's just a sample - I basically took a letter from MS WordArt, pasted it to inscape and sliced it with thin boxes - just need to know what front that is (I'm not sure of the name) - Any Ideas? - FOX 52 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's line art, probably not a font. A best bet is to find a regular font similar to it then slicing it in Inkscape. I'll see what fonts could be used. ///EuroCarGT 23:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome - let me know FOX 52 (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well font detection programs didn't work, it detects each line as an I or L. Guess it's really line art. Best, ///EuroCarGT 00:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugghhh OK I'm checking some of my usual sources, I'll see if anything turns up - FOX 52 (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Central Reserve Police Force emblem.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Central Reserve Police Force emblem.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bell AH-1 SuperCobra

Please see 15 Iran at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bell_AH-1_SuperCobra#Iran Dreddmoto (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Coast Guard Air Station Sitka was accepted

Coast Guard Air Station Sitka, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, FOX 52. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Chamith (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For doing a thorough checklist, submitting a proper flight(editing)-plan and clearing the runway(redirect) before taking off and landing the article in it's proper place. Well done! w.carter*-Talk* 18:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italian HH-3F phase out

Sorry for that. I now added sources from ITAF supporting that HH-3Fs have been retired from Italian service. Hoping it will be ok now. Regards. --EH101 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flying ace

No objection to the Rickenbacker picture in itself - just that if every illustration in a long article had to be "the most notable" we'd replace every picture in the WWI section of the article with one of Richthofen - and make sure that each picture was one of his most famous portrait at that! A bit of variety, and the odd unexpected (and for that very reason more interesting) picture never hurts. Still, it's also nice to "cycle" illustrations a bit - so I won't argue or edit war over it. Hang in there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why undo Bell H-13 Sioux edits?

Why did you undo the latest edit to that article? 3 Commando Brigade Air Squadron of the Royal Marines, was an operator of the type. You can see for yourself at the 3 Commando Brigade Air Squadron article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Commando_Brigade_Air_Squadron Dreddmoto (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word an should be used before all vowel sounds (a, e, i, o, u) - And as for 3 Commando Brigade Air Squadron you need to provided a reliable source, per WP:PROVEIT - unfortunately you can not use Wikipedia as a source; see WP:CIRCULAR for more information - FOX 52 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It would have been helpful if you had mentioned that at the time of your edit. --Dreddmoto (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hence my edit summary "grammar fix" - FOX 52 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?

Hey mate, I saw your edit at I-League and honestly I am still very confused? I just simply just want to update the logo to include the sponsorship, I've never had a problem before. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not a problem this was a graphics lab request from Perumalism, I didn't see the point in taking out the vectored, for a more grainier logo. - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess that makes sense. I simply just copied from the official All India Football Federation page. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 20 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Royal Brunei Air Force page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McDonnell Douglas MD 500 Defender

>15:18, 22 January 2015‎ FOX 52 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,834 bytes) (-210)‎ . . (under variants)

What do you mean? 丁 (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Version information should be placed Operational history or Variant section, operators list is just for notable users - per WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS FOX 52 (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you have claimed was not written in WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS. Anyway, I don't think my edit[6] was useless because many forces which listed there operate unarmed or civil MD500, not the Defender. Not to confuse the readers, necessary information should be noted there. Some other major aircraft articles such like McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Operators and List_of_Boeing_747_operators also place more informations on the Operators section but there are no problem. 丁 (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No that's exactly what it says "a collection of links to airlines or individual air force squadrons that are using the type". We're not here to inundate the reader to much technical information, that's why we apply specific information to specific sections. - FOX 52 (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik Air Force Roundel

Hey Fox52, There's a thread on the Aircraft Resource Center about the roundel of Tajikistan's Air Force: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=281523

In that thread, Linden Hill's research says Tajikistan still uses the old Soviet-style red star, and sometimes their air force crest (which I think you can see in the blue and white Mi-8 in the first photo in that thread), and Tajikistan's flag - which you can see there on an AN-2 and a rather large example on another of their Mi-8s. Not sure if any of that merits a change in the actual article, but as you can see it looks like it's definitely not a green star or was ever a green star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beingthehero (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start in the right direction, now if we can get conclusive evidence aside from the forum (they fall under unreliable sources) we’d be in good shape ♦ Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Air Force

Hello, why you editing Mongolian Air Force ? Flightglobal's information is wrong. First they are not listed Mi-24 ( http://www.photoblog.com/Bagabandi/2008/09/23/ ), second you have to read military balance and other internet sources. Buuhai 06:06, 07 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is photo-blog(s) are not a reliable source per - WP:SPS and if Mongolia had Mi-24's are they still current? Flightglobal is a verified news source and is current to 2015, military balance is 3 years old (2012). Lasty over use of images is not permitted - WP:IMAGEMOS - FOX 52 (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Mongolia is still using Mi-24 helicopters, http://zasag.mn/m/ministry-of-defense/view/8364 - On 19th of January (2015) Mongolian Minister of Defense met with 337th airborne unit. First photo is Mongolian Mi-24. http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Mongolia - Look at those helicopter numbers. http://www.armyrecognition.com/mongolia_mongolian_army_land_ground_forces_uk/mongolia_mongolian_army_land_ground_armed_forces_military_equipment_armoured_armored_vehicle_uk.html - Mongolia had 11 Mi-24s. BTW read the Flightglobal 2011 World Air Forces 2011/2012. There wrote that Mongolia had 25 Mi-24 and 25 Mi-8. Buuhai 07:58, 07 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your ministry of defense page showing a picture of a Mi-24 does not provide written proof to their current use. A photo alone is consider “original research” therefore cannot be used. - globalfirepower.com states partial sourcing which includes “Wikipedia” and that not allowed per WP:CIRCULAR, and the armyrecognition.com has no sources of any kind, and refers to the “Mongolian Army” but the article in question is the Mongolian Air Force. Having said that we will leave it in for now per Flightglobal World Air Forces 2011/2012 - FOX 52 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question

Re: List of Vietnam War flying aces - Why did you remove Ritchie from the list? - ^theWOLFchild 05:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been an accident - restored now, thanks for the heads up FOX 52 (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IAC equipment template

Given that there's been a little to-and-fro on this template, I've opened a topic on the relevant talk page. Would be delighted to get your input - to better coordinate efforts. Guliolopez (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bell 222

Hi, I changed the position of the File:Bell 222 as the image covers the specification table, at least on my monitor. Chesipiero (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you managed to place it under the "See also" section, which should remain clear of images - the orthographical image is better suited for the "Specifications" section cheers FOX 52 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Gday - re my revert on the RAAF article. My edit summary doesn't make sense I realise, sorry I misunderstood your edit. I still don't agree with your reversion of IP 101's edit but I now understand your second edit summary "remove speculative wording per WP:CBALL". Apologies. I'll explain myself re the revert on the talk page ASAP. Anotherclown (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not a problem - FOX 52 (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bell 412,212,206

these bell avilabla in thai police aviation divition so you can read thai language สำนักงานตำรวจแห่งชาติ at these bell so it's real because when i have seen these bell with my eye already and that link is wedsite of thai police and show what they have and it's reliable source this!!!http://www.tpad.police.go.th/news1.php is real link of thai aviation divition you can check it if you cannot read thai language go lean now because thai word is beside of these bell okeyyy

that's the source you should have used in the first place - FOX 52 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Air Force

Hi, your revert of Yak-40 retirement and replacement is IMHO inadequate, since it is an important information. Moreover, similar information are common there. For example, in Royal Air Force article: "Tornado GR4 is due to retire in March 31, 2019" or "All C-130s will be withdrawn by 2022" or "This is a potential candidate to fulfil a requirement for an ISTAR UAV to enter service after 2015".--Mossback (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And those two examples are skating the line of speculation as well, and that doesn't mean go ahead and do it cause you see it somewhere else on Wikipedia. More specifically tables should be void of such statements, just informational notes. - FOX 52 (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was in the article and not in the table after your first revert (yes, it was my fault to include this information in the table for the first time). The most important thing is that the date of retirement based on actual service life is not a speculation at all. Finally, my RAF example is just an example, not an inspiration for me.--Mossback (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for your edits! CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much Appreciated – Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PC reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding World Airforces 2015 / Romanian air force

I have stated this thing again. World airforces 2015 is not complete.For example Alenia C-27J 6 (1 on order) . The last one has been recieved at the beginning of the year (which is referenced in the equipment of the romanian armed forces).UAV RQ-7 Shadow , none of the new ones are there(which have been referenced even in this article before),more specifically Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk and ScanEagle . The MIM-23 Hawk is not mentioned at all even though it is mentioned on the government website..and most of the AA as well while ZSU-57-2 has been added , a vehicle that has not been used by romania since the 1990's . IAR 316 is not even added at all. The radars are also not mentioned at all. Romdwolf (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

because you say a source is not complete doesn't make it so - per original research - You need your provide reliable source(s) for all you entries regarding and UAV's and radars, and I may challenge any non-sourced content WP:PROVEIT - FOX 52 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Royal New Zealand Air Force may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

was cancelled in 2001 by the [[Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand|incoming Labour Government]].]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan Air Force

The Transnistrian armed forces is not part of the moldovan air force and thus their aircraft do not belong there.

Regarding the other things i added. This is the article i used to source it : http://www.army.md/?lng=3&action=show&cat=122&obj=3349#.VY7SYUak8hS and this is the video from moldova army's official youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OKG1jMubpg one of the pilots clearly stating an-2 being part of the military(although not in english) The videos also show the an-2 being operational. I'm not exactly sure how the youtube sourcing works if you can use youtube to reference things at all . The Mil Mi-2 is seen operational and since it was listed as a military aircraft last year I don't see why it wouldn't see why it would by any other. Regarding the other aicraft in the article (including the sting aircrafts) no other information is being shared about them neither in the article nor in the clip and that's why I didn't even add them.

Again, I'm not sure how youtube referencing works so I'm going to leave it up to you.Romdwolf (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Australian Air Force

Hi, You restored the eye candy that I had deleted from the list of current inventory at Royal Australian Air Force. I thought the WikiProject discussion had made it clear that this stuff was not wanted. May I ask why you restored it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was on board with keeping images out of tables, not out of articles - few images pertaining to types used by an Air Force I think should be provided - FOX 52 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article already has a few images, I thought there were too many in the list section to simply move in with them. As I see it, a list is a list whether it is a dedicated page or just a section in another article. Do we need to get this clarified? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of World Air Forces 2015 from Flight Global

Hi, I noticed that you have been going around almost every air force article in the region, massively editing the aircraft listing, and all basing too much on Flight Global's WAF 2015. Why you rely too much on a single source without even considering the sources previously indicated before you made those edits? You did it with the Philippine Air Force article, and you just did the same with the Royal Malaysian Air Force article too. Instead of helping, I think you are actually making more issues with other contributors who are trying hard to keep those articles as accurate as possible but you just overwritten with your own edits. Phichanad (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK @Phichanad: let’s review one of your accurate entries in the PAF article - SIAI-Marchetti S.211 In Service: 5 there are two sources, one from World Air Forces 2014 which show they have five, and the other source philstar.com states near the bottom “The PAF still has six of the S-211 jet trainers …” So an editor went with FG? In the Notes section it says: “Locally upgraded to AS-211 "Warrior" standard to do air-to-ground missions. 7 more airframes stored, waiting for reactivation”, and the source provided, makes no mention of what’s stated. Then adding to the confusion this source quotes "So far, we have three (S-211) operational and we are requesting..." - As you can see they're some discrepancies just in that one alone - FOX 52 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got your point. Obviously the article's sources are not updated, although you have been successful in pointing that to us. We'll be doing the corrections one at a time, as I said before, publicly open sources are not that plentiful for PAF asset numbers. If you noticed, the S-211 numbers were updated yesterday. Its now down to 3, straight from the horse's mouth. So WAF2015 has one point for that, but that didn't mean WAF2015 is also correct. It wasn't written there what variant of S.211 are in PAF service, and it was not even considered as a combat aircraft when the S.211 (AS.211) are now more considered as combatants that trainers since the exit of the F-5A/B. But our point is, do not just overwrite everything by editing based on a single source, without considering other sources that are are probably more accurate that what you use. I am not saying WAF2015 is 100% inaccurate, but it is also not 100% accurate. Take time to look at other sources to know what I mean. Thanks. Phichanad (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Phichanad: And that is not a problem, just if you'd please try to adapt your source(s) and changes to the sub-headed table (with holding image) as we are trying to unify all the tables under one model. I'd appreciated greatly -Maraming salamat FOX 52 (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Air Force

Please avoid biting the newbies if possible. We're trying to retain them, not force them out. If someone has just come onboard, please do not threaten them immediately with being blocked from editing for not conforming with the IMAGEMOS. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mess in my lap

You left a beer open and now it's all over me. DMacks (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For excellent work on the RMAF article. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated - FOX 52 (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya Army Mi-28 Havoc

You claimed the source didn't list them as being in service HOWEVER, if you had taken time to read the source, you would note the following:"Flight International’s World Air Forces 2013 also lists 16 Mi-28s ordered by Kenya, with 5 DELIVERED".I suggest int the future you read a source rather then simply adding or subtracting from an topic you clearly lack knowledge in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurse2Be (talk • contribs) 06:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the helicopters in question have disappeared from the 2014 version of World Air Forces, which suggests that the 2013 entry was incorrect.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As well in the 2015 WAF report, no Mi-28's for Kenya, so more than likely a incorrect entry - FOX 52 (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam People's Airforce

Dear FOX 52. Regarding the Vietnam People's Air force’s aircraft inventory, my friends who working in Vietname Air force Command Center have been confirmed that we have 36 Sukhoi MK2V and 12 Sukhoi SK/UBK. I added 2 foreign websites and 1 Vietnamese website to confirm this information. Best regards! (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC+9)

Cold War Air Museum Operator in Texas, USA

FOX 52, You have removed, at least twice, a reference to the Cold War Air Museum operating two Mi24s in Texas, USA. Your 07Mar2013 removal appeared to be a part of a bulk "Operator" section reorganization to your referenced liking. Your 15Jul2014 removal is much more targeted in that you completely removed our provided reference/subsection and commented: (remove promotional webpage link). Two questions: (1) what is your definition or "promotion" versus "citation" and (2) why would not you simply remove the questionable or controversial "promotional webpage link" rather than deleting the entire subsection? I login to Wiki infrequently so it may be a while before I respond to your answers. Looks like you put a great deal of effort into overseeing your chosen topics, thanks for your time.Supporter of truth and logic (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My graphics lab request

Could we leave it open for now? I actually have a bunch more that need done if you'd be willing or another volunteer is available. Abyssal (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Abyssal: It would be best to close this one, as it may lead to confusion on whether it's filled or not - And when your ready throw in a new request (from experience, it usually ends up taking longer for editor(s) to add new parts to a current request) - Cheers

OK Abyssal (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of disputed non-free files

Hello, one (or more) of the images you uploaded that fell into the {{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} category have been re-tagged with {{Di-fails NFCC}}. This means that the image may be deleted unless rationale for its inclusion on Wikipedia can be provided. This change was made due to a deletion discussion for the first template. If you have any questions, please reply here (ping me with {{u|Primefac}}) or on my talk page. You can see all of the files at Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 21 January 2016. Thank you for your time. Primefac (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military aircraft insignia

Hi Fox, may I please ask why have you reverted my edition at Military aircraft insignia if it's properly sourced (and common knowledge)? Just in case, here you have it in English too, quoting the original source: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/OEWatch/201307/Russia_05.html Best regards, --MaeseLeon (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MaeseLeon: We've seen this report before but there nothing to support its reliability as true source. Furthermore there are plenty of images from 2015, that contradict this claim from 2013. - [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they haven't still repainted all of them. Oh well, i guess we'll have to wait until they do to write down here what is known right now in Russia and in every air force in the world, which is exactly as reported in those articles, not to enter an edition war. I actually don't mind, honestly. Have a nice day. MaeseLeon (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rv in List of Mil Mi-8/17 operators

(diff) What was wrong in the edit you reverted? Please use edit summaries when reverting edits. --Z 07:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ZxxZxxZ: Please provide a reliable source for your entry, without one it may be challenged and removed per WP:PROVEIT - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The H225M caracal for Kuwait air force

it was confirmed that kuwait signed a 2.5 billion dollar deal with france for (24 armed H225M caracal / and 120 renault shepra) the deal was confirmed from both Kuwait and France,, i can give you sources IHardned (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it be should close to near-term production and confirmed WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS - And always supply a reliable source when adding new content - FOX 52 (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources of kuwaiti air force H225M caracal

this is the link with pic of kuwait and france signing of the H225M and the renault sherpa

http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/kuwait-france-sign-e2-5bn-chopper-deal-a-slew-of-other-joint-agreements-also-inked/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHardned (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so after i send you the official links and picture of the Kuwaiti signing the H225M heli's should i add them ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHardned (talk • contribs) 08:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - FOX 52 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for archiving Graphics Lab

Hi, thanks for your contributions and archiving old/stale/resolved requests on the Illustration Workshop. I've created January 2016 and February 2016 archive pages and moved the requests that came in during those months from the December 2015 archive page to the corresponding archive pages. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome, thanks for your help there as well - FOX 52 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prove your claims FOX 52

Prove your claim that air force world is a blog or self published websitehttp://en.airforceworld.com/a/20150624/149.html. Also prove that air force technology is a superior or more reliable source on F-7 jets than air force world. I might soon take this matter up with the CEO of wikipedia, seems some 'admin editors' have given themselves the sole right to post content and deliberately discredit superior edits stating flimsy excuses. Someone's 'job' might soon be on the line. Your two proofs awaited. Sapong (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK first off we don't have CEO's here at Wikipedia nor do we have paid positions like a job, it's all volunteer. Now if you had read the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Citing sources (which I posted on your talk page twice) you might have a better understanding of proper sources to use. A source like "chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.ca/p/fighters" which you used is a dead give away that BlogSpot in the address is blog - Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Double V campaign" emblem

Hey FOX 52, I was checking on my Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop query and discovered you had swepted it into the March archive without explanation. What happened? Mitchumch (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that, accidentally got grouped in with the other two "resolved" requests - I've reinstated your request - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the Missile Wing images!

21lima (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Double V campaign" emblem

My "Double V campaign" emblem" post to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop was marked as stale and archived on 22:45, 16 May 2016. How do I get this image produced? Mitchumch (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchumch: Unfortunately your request is quite intricate, and at this point you'll have to wait for an editor to check the archives, and see if it gets pickup up then. - Apologies FOX 52 (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IRIAF

Hi,

Why did you remove the SU-24's from the current inventory list of IRIAF article?

Also, IRIAF does not have SU-27's. None have been seen in IRIAF markings. If IRIAF had SU-27 they would certainly have been in operational service and spotted in pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersianFire (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been a typo, its fixed - FOX 52 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SVG help

FOX 52, I know you do a lot of SVG work and I need your help! I'm in the learning phases and I'm having issues with File:FHSU Tigers logo.svg. I need to add a white background behind the actual tiger itself (much like the one at www.fhsuathletics.com). I have Inkscape, and I can't seem to figure this out. If you would be willing to guide me through it, I'd appreciate it! If I can't seem to get it, would you mind doing it? Thanks, 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 06:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan: - You'll need to trace the area you want in white (white fill only, no stroke), and then lower that layer to the bottom. Here a inkscape tutorial on layers that should help. Any problems drop me line - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FOX 52: Thanks for the link! For right now, if you don't mind, would you fix this? I'll practice with it, but right now I'd prefer an expert fix this file... Also, the code might need cleaned up, too... not sure why gradient is in there when there isn't any. Lol Thanks, Corkythehornetfan 🎓 05:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done- @Corkythehornetfan: FOX 52 (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CzAF "Edit warring"

Hello, FOX 52. Just in case you have missed my reply to your "Edit warring" message on User talk:Mossback: What about to discuss our dispute there? In my opinion, your reverts could be also viewed as edit war, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is that you should not delete an appropriate source. An annual Czech Air Force Yearbook 20XX is obviously somewhat more accurate or at least comparable source to Flightglobal’s World Air Forces 20XX. In fact, I have created a certain number of articles about various air forces on Czech Wikipedia and in most cases I have used Flightglobal as the main source for lists of aircraft. However, I would always prefer some specialised source (like Journal of the Air Force XY or XY Air Force Yearbook) if I had such source available. To conclude, the best solution from my point of view is to preserve both sources in the Czech Air Force article. I'm looking forward to your reply.--Mossback (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid sources are not valid either

You have once again changed Finnish Air Force article to claim that Redigo is used by the Finnish Air Force (with comment "pending orders are not valid"), based on World Air Forces 2016. Redigo was retired from service in 2013, was never used as a trainer and the actual trainer used is Valmet Vinka and has been for over 30 years. I have corrected this twice, and still you want to change it based on unreliable source. If you are so determined to spread incorrect information about a subject you clearly are not familiar with, then be it. I'm tired of fixing it. Khilon (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, FOX 52. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwaiti Air Force

Hey FOX 52 , Please stop throwing stuff out of the Kuwaiti Air Force page, as i've worked long and hard to gather these information, such as you have edited the Number of the S-92 helicopters to 2, while infact Kuwait owns 3, serial numbers are ( KAF991 - KAF992 - KAF993 ) ,, and you have put the Number of the F18C to 27 while its actually 32 F18Cs and 7 F18Ds . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHardned (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IHardned: The you keep refereeing back to Flightglobal World Air Forces 2016 states exactly (27) F/A-18C's and (7) F/A-18D's - with only (2) S-92 helicopters - Please check your sources better, next time - FOX 52 (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KAF 2

Hey FOX 52, My sources arent only from Websites, you can never depend only on a website, my sources consist of many Websites and the Kuwaiti air force itself in form of the Commander and the members, and i also have 2 friends that work as fighter pilots in the Kuwaiti Air Force, as i told you for example Flightglobal says that the KAF has only 2 S-92 Helis, i tell you there's three serial numbered ( KAF991 and KAF992 and KAF993 ) you can also find pictures of the three on google, same thing with Hornets, Kuwait has a total of 39 Hornets in service, 12 of them are Stationed at King Khalid air base is Saudi arabia as they're taking part in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. and Thank you for telling me not to add potential orders and requsts in the Inventory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHardned (talk • contribs) 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IHardned: you can NOT use what you heard from someone that is original research which is not allowed. Please don not change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. It's a good idea to review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources –Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say " all four sources are dated to 2004-2011 " while this Source clearly says 2012 http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/kuwait-enhances-fighter-force.html and that Kuwait asked for a Foreign Military Sale of 43 joint helmet mounted cueing systems for 32 F18Cs and 7 F18Ds in 28th june 2012. Also this is an extra Source from 2016 that says Kuwait is operationg 32 F18Cs and 7 F18Ds https://www.copybook.com/news/usd10-billion-us-kuwaiti-super-hornets-sale-approved we cannot turn a blind eye on what we dont want to see. i brought you more than 6 sources and you're only sticking to yours (Flightglobal) well according to flight global they Say Kuwait recieved 27 F18Cs in 1990s which is false according to the Untied States State Department and the Kuwwaiti Air Forcce, Kuwait had received 32 F18Cs By 1997, you can check that in every single source such as ArmsTrade. so here you see your source is false which shows it can easily be false again. Also since you dont want to believe that the KAF owns 3 S-92 helicopters here's a pic of all three ( KAF991 - KAF992 - KAF993 ) http://www.aeroboek.nl/S92/KAF991.jpg KAF991. http://www.aeroboek.nl/S92/KAF992.jpg KAF992 http://www.aeroboek.nl/S92/KAF993.jpg KAF993

hope you search and investigate more about the Subject, and fix the mistakes if there were any like the S-92 as you see there's clearly 3 above — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHardned (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IHardned: At one time they did have 32 F/A-18C's according to Flightglobal 1994, but you must remember number(s) will change over time due to accidents and maintaince issues - As for the images (KAF991, KAF992, KAF993) there's no metadata to accompany it. And does not constitute as a reliable source, but at this point I'll reinstate the (3) S-92's so that all are happy. Just be sure in the future to use a news oriented source - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FOX

Yes you're right they do change due to accidents and running into maintaince issues which happened to only one of the Aircrafts which was an F18D and thats why they have 39 in service rather than 40, no other plane had any accidents or issues that we know about or got reported. and dont rely only on one source sometimes it can be mistakes :) i'll gather further information and sources - for now have a wonderful day mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHardned (talk • contribs) 06:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FOX52

You got reliable sources. So, stop revert page Serbian Air Force without any proof or reliable sources. Thanks! (Knightserbia (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Knightserbia: having reliable sources is not the problem, it's promoting items that have yet to come. Wikipedia is not here to discuss what's on the horizon per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CBALL. Further please refrain from placing images in these tables per WP:WHENTABLE. Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Papua New Guinea Defence Force Air Operations Element

Hello, I have returned the table structure to the previous I created, including date introduced, and re added the information removed including 2 Australian helicopters, IAI Arava not in service, 1 CASA CN-235 in service and ambition to restore CASA C212-200 to service. These are not "un-sourced / erroneous entries". I refer to the official air transport wing of the PNGDF website that went live only a few months ago, the Commander PNGDF statement of intent for 2016 and the Defence White paper 2013. Please check existing sources before removing in the future. Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Melbguy05: Your efforts are much appreciated, but please be sure to follow the guidelines in such table changes (WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS - WP:WHENTABLE). Furthermore avoid placing information that refers to future events ie: "ambition to restore" and "statement of intent for 2016" Wikipedia is not a news site WP:NOTNEWS - WP:CBALL. Lastly it is not necessary to place multiply sources for small groups of text WP:OVERCITE Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: (a) You seem to have removed my citations for no valid reason - I can provide a reason for each citation in regards to breaching policy WP:OVERCITE - 1. official PNGDF website that is only a few months old on current inventory including what is actually in "service", 2. aircraft military enthusiast website with people on the ground in PNG with photos of each plane including what is in "service", 3. official PNGDF media release for purchase of planes and 4. manufacturers media release on purchase. (b) I cannot see that I did anything against the policy WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS and again I can't see I did anything against policy WP:WHENTABLE. (c) The next item you raised was the CASA C212-200. This is in their inventory. The table is headed "current inventory". You can dispute the WP:NOTNEWS - WP:CBALL in regards to "statement of intent for 2016" and the "Defence White paper 2013". However, I provided the note to inform readers that it was "not in service" and they stated an "intention to bring it into service". Readers would have not known this information. It was not in the body of text above the table. I have not read any sources that state they will be disposing of it in contrast to the UH-1H Iroquois helicopters and IAI Arava aircraft. Maybe, I should have placed this information in the body of text above the table. However, you have now removed this information and there is now no reference in the article at all to the CASA C212-200- with no explanation in edit or in this talk? You can dispute "statement of intent for 2016" and the "Defence White paper 2013". I can dispute the ability of PNGDF to even pay for the PAC P-750 on order or the PAC CT-4E this may not eventuate given the level of corruption/misappropriation of funds in PNG which includes defence funding. (d) You sourced the "World Air Forces 2017" which I have demonstrated, if the information you put in the table in late February were correct citations, that is not a reliable source. 1, You had three IAI Arava in service. 2, 2 CASA CN-235 in service. 3, No Bell 212 in service. 4, No order for PAC CT-4E. Your recent edit now does not contain the IAI Arava??? and now includes the PAC CT-4E??? - this goes to reliability of source. 5, In the edit history you state "Bell 212 contract has expired per source", if you had bothered to take the time to read the information above the table you would have read that it was extended to 2019 by the Australian government. The Bell 212 is now not in the table??? (e) You removed the introduced year into service - with no explanation in the edit or in this talk??? (f) You removed the total column with no explanation in the edit or in this talk? If you were familiar with the PNGDF they have a long history of not having the funds to service their aircraft which is my view is important information that would be of value to readers. I referred to the PNGDF official website and also the military aircraft enthusiasts who are on the ground in PNG for the CASA CN-235 for example. Your recent edit now has in service 2 for the CASA CN-235, this is misleading, as one is out of action and again given the issues in PNG with corruption/misappropriation this may not eventuate. (g) Either you are not diligent referencing information or the information in "World Air Forces 2017" is unreliable. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you are diligent, and, therefore concluded, that "World Air Forces 2017" was an unreliable source and removed all references. Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Air Force

Cristi1457 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)FOX 52 As a Romanian, following the press releases of the National Defense Ministry of Romania and the ROAF official website, I can provide the correct information. Today, the Romanian Air Force page is incomplete, thanks to your hard work to destroy the work of others.[reply]

I second this. Just because certain items failed to appear on "World Air Forces 2017" doesn't mean that they don't exist. I would understand if the sources would be completely outdated but that's not the case. The source which I have added regarding the F-16's (regarding the delivery of the last 3 of the 9 total aircraft currently in use more precisely) was dated "December 19, 2016" (http://www.defenseworld.net/news/18000/Romania_Receives_Three_More_Portugese_F_16_Jets#.WQqG9aKYKAR). Some of the other sources (not necessarily added by me) was the air force's own website which makes me ask how is "World Air Forces 2017" more reliable than the organization actually using those items. Regarding your previous edits to the user above your edits stated "restore sourced content" but he did add the sources. I don't see how , as previous references were dated 2015-2016 (one of which was December 2016) , the lack of new sources (even on a list presumably holding a list of items) justifies the deletion of recently sourced items as long as there's no news of them ever disappearing ,being phased out or similar.

P.S. Ironically enough , the ZSU-57-2 , a system which was replaced by the Gepard (which has removed from the list) and phased out in the 1990's is still on the list. Romdwolf (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you may add any pertinent information as long it is verified by a reliable source. If not I may remove it per WP:PROVEIT - FOX 52 (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jamaica Defence Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrol vehicle (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) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry

Forgive me my friend but i know qatar Air Force buy 24 dassault raffale and air force venezuela order SU 35 - Awangyoska (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Air Force

Hi can you please help me with links Afgan Air Force page. For Mi 17 link is: International Institute for Strategic Studies. The Military Balance 2016 / James Hackett. — London: Taylor&Francis, 2016. — С. 231. — 504 с. — ISBN 9781857438352. and for Mi 35 is: http://www.milaviapress.com/orbat/afghanistan/index.php and ↑ The Military Balance 2016. p.231 Thanks, Riper9819 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riper9819 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the two sources you mentioned are outdated - FOX 52 (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State Seal of Japan

I got your completion notice-they are not the same-note the upper left kanji.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kintetsubuffalo: try this file - FOX 52 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IAF table according to types

I'm sorry FOX but that edit gives an erroneous impression as to IAF strengths and uses by type. Only flight international appears to be under the delusion that the F15 B/D and the F16D are not in combat roles. The F15 B/D are used as supplimentary F15I's in the strike role, effectively giving the IAF 2 F-15I squadrons. Also note the recent aquisition of 11 F-15B/D from the U.S.A.F. Also the Israelis have just purchased 30 the new 'Lavi' advanced trainers so they are not short of ultra modern training platforms. See this excellent article http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-amazing-saga-of-how-israel-turned-its-f-15s-into-mu-1701606283 for added info on this. Simon. Irondome (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Irondome: Simon the note section is there for that very purpose and the use of dual citation(s) (WP:CITEKILL) is only make more of a mess for the reader. As per the guideline WP:WHENTABLE - avoid cramming detailed information into table entrie(s), the reader should be able to click a Wikilink to see detailed article corresponding concise table entry - I will try to retain the pertinent information but that table needs to be streamline. Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FOX, that would be fine. My only problem was the source which claimed an unfeasably high number of operational aircraft earmarked as trainers. The two other sources on the existing table flatly contradict this. I would suggest your new table with the majority source consensus as to their roles. Did you read the link I gave by the way? Interesting stuff and completely unmentioned on WP. It looks a well researched WP:RS. It would make an interesting article, Israeli F-15 B/D Modifications. Cheers Simon. Irondome (talk). We would need more sources though. 23:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use the ISS source - FOX 52 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By using ISS you claim that IAF has 224 F-16C/D/I. But how many of them are F-16C single-seaters, F-16D two-seater, and unique F-16I's? The reader should be able to click a Wikilink to see detailed article corresponding concise table entry, but there is no article other than this one to tell the reader IAF has 98 F-16I's, 78 F-16C's, and 49 F-16D's. And this is just one example. Your 'streamlining' makes the entire table useless for me. Flayer (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Flayer: The problem with presenting two sources is you've made some assumptions (ei: FG has 67 F-15A/C/I’s in inventory, and then you’re taking IISS numbers which states there are 33 F-15A/C & 25 I’s and then splitting the difference). It implies that FG has it at 42 F-15A/C’s and 25 I’s, which is misleading since it cannot be confirmed as they have grouped all the variants together - And remember the table should be for all readers, so it would not be useless to them - Thoughts @BilCat: @Irondome: - FOX 52 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25 F-15I's and 42 F-15A/C’s can be easily confirmed by FG. Flayer (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you use that source in the first place? FOX 52 (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was accidently overridden by the FG pdf. Flayer (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be more careful please

You overwrote my protection request here [13] Meters (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: My apologies was not intentional - FOX 52 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie. It just took me a while to figure out where it had disappeared to. Meters (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SA Air Force page "too many pics"

Hi Fox 52 appreciate your interest. Thought all the pics were fundamental to the page as this is the second oldest air force in the world. Your comments are noted. The unit organigrams have been found to be very useful to local researchers in South Africa to understand especially how the SAAF functioned during the bush war. i.e. maybe not of fundamental interest to someone in the United States but definitely important to South Africans. Kind regards.

Just curious

Hi FOX, just curious as to why you decided to add an up-to-date aircraft inventory table to Indian Air Force, rather than add it to List of active Indian military aircraft? BTW, you have done a really excellent job on updating all the air force articles inventories!! Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antiochus the Great: - I think it's good to have the basic table as opposed to the List of active Indian military aircraft which seems to carry more information and detailed notes. (And thank you, I try to keep'em simple and clean) - FOX 52 (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (2017)

for your great work and for pinging me when stuff is done! ~~Might you be willing to lend your talent to Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Boy_Scouts_of_Manchukuo?~~--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

121

Italy ordered 121 EF2000eurofighter Typhoons as reported in all related articles and Airbus reference in its main article(see up).Please refrain your acting and read well the right sources before than insisting since long time..Benniejets (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qatari roundel

The LV roundel is sourced here under Qatar. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will you just look at the damned source? There is a photo! Fry1989 ^eh? 17:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Which? the Sea King? that's not low vis roundel. just a low quality picture - (here's their Sea King under better light) FOX 52 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, FOX 52. You have new messages at BlackFlanker's talk page.
Message added 15:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

BlackFlanker (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samoa coat of arms

Hello Fox - I realized I forgot to mention that the Samoa coat of arms you made,is of the Kingdom of Samoa 1873 - 1900. I guess you need that information when adding the coa to the Samoa-page. Sorry for inconvenience JanJC (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star

Fox, I'm trying hard not to make an issue of every infobox image change you've been making. However, using a T-33 image in the infobox of the F-80 article isn't a good idea. If the rightly-blocked User:Hoggardhigh hadn't intervened, I'd have reverted it myself if I had realized it was a T-33. I don't think the previous image is so bad that we have to have an image of another, albeit very closely related type. Once the Hog is prevented from editing the article, I'll probably change it back, unless I can find a better image. Most of the good in-flight images are black-and-white, and I'd prefer a color one, if available. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realized that's not a P-80 image so no worries - FOX 52 (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll see if I can get the page protected, and then swap it again. - BilCat (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image close-up

Fox, could you make a close-up of File:Tejas LCA 2015.jpg for the Astra (missile)'s infobox? Please include enough of the aircraft to identify it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has created File:AstraMk1Missile.jpg. I think it's to narrow, but it'll work. - BilCat (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: for future reference I've made some images like this and self created like this. Which I believe is a good way to display the object for the reader. - FOX 52 (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi FOX 52. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shamash-sun-symbol (3 rays).svg

Hi FOX 52, thank you for your work on the file.

Could you do some more corrections please? If you look at the original File:Tablet of Shamash relief.jpg here, you can noticed some more details within the star. The circle in the middle consists of two circles, and the four arms of the star also have lines in them that run along the length. Could you add those details please? Thank you very much. Gryffindor (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to image

Hi FOX 52. A few weeks ago you touched up the infobox image at Sukhoi Su-35. Do you think you could do the same thing to File:Sukhoi Su-35 MAKS'2011 Avdeev.jpg? The reason is because this particular image has the aircraft facing towards the left (towards the text). Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Sp33dyphil: Ok I cropped it, BTW that's a great photo - I think this one would be ideal for the infobox as well - FOX 52 (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'll make sure to replace the pic. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change the picture for RMAF

Fox, Will you give me a better angle of RMAF Jets and helicopters, Thanks.Hawkeye Ridgesaw Summer (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 710: / Line 710: @@
 :{{Done}} {{ping|Sp33dyphil}} Ok I [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sukhoi_Su-35_MAKS%272011_Avdeev_(cropped).jpg cropped it], BTW that's a great photo - I think this one would be ideal for the infobox as well - [[User:FOX 52|FOX 52]] ([[User talk:FOX 52#top|talk]]) 04:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 ::Thank you for that. I'll make sure to replace the pic. Regards, --[[User:Sp33dyphil|Sp33dyphil]] ([[User talk:Sp33dyphil|talk]]) 05:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
+== Change the picture for RMAF ==
+Fox, Will you give me a better angle of RMAF Jets and helicopters, Thanks.[[User:Hawkeye Ridgesaw Summer|Hawkeye Ridgesaw Summer]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye Ridgesaw Summer|talk]]) 06:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)