Jump to content

User talk:SPB41Sqn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPB41Sqn (talk | contribs) at 02:55, 31 July 2016 (→‎July 2016). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Good luck, and have fun. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Watten

Thanks for your contribution to the page dedicated to the Blockhaus. You contributed to get closer to the listing on the official website [1]. I have got some questions though:

  • For losses during the raid of August 30 1943: you mention that 2 Flying Fortress were lost to Flak, one to Me 109 and one to AA. If in total 4 Flying Fortresses were lost, you wording may be misleading.
  • What do you mean by AA? Anti-aerial? What is the main difference with Flak?
  • "TNA AIR 40/436" and "11 Group ORB" seems to be acronyms but an acronym of what? Would help to have it written in full length for non specialists.

Thanks for your time. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alberto. In regard to the last Flying Fortress lost, I have made a correction to clarify that the fourth was hit by Flak (AA = anti-aircraft [fire]), too, but managed to cross the Channel to England again, where it crash-landed as a result of the damaged it sustained. I hope my amendment to the page makes it clearer. "TNA AIR 25/436" is a file reference from the United Kingdom National Archives in London. TNA stands for "The National Archives". "ORB" is the abbreviation for Operations Record Book, which is the Air Force war diary. I have made slight amendments to the references on the page to make them more clearer. Does this help? Regards, Steve

It does help. Thanks a lot.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Men worth of note section

In reply to your question on my talk page about why I deleted some of the content in the Men of Note Section (which I recapitalised as per guidelines). Basically I deleted content for squadron members who have their own wikipedia pages where the content I deleted wasn't about 41 Sqn. For example in the section on George Beurling I deleted the information about his exploits after he served with 41. This information, about his death for example, should all be on his own page there is no point in it being here.

I hope this makes sense. Please let me know if you have any more questions, Cjrother (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to RAF Coningsby may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it!

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No. 41 Squadron RAF, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Farnborough, Tall Boy and The Great Escape (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) 10:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC) ___[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. My time was cut short and I didn't get an opportunity to clean up what I'd added. I will go back any make an necessary corrections. SPB41Sqn (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of No. 41 Squadron RAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 41 Squadron RAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Copyright problem icon Your addition to No. 41 Squadron RAF has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dl2000 (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dl2000, the material you have deleted is MY material from MY website. I am the Historian for 41 Squadron and the detail results from my 12 years researching and writing about the Squadron, which includes three books. As a part of the nomination for a Good Article, I was asked to add a summarising opening para. I therefore took my own summary from my own website and adapted (condensed) it accordingly. It is NOT, I repeat NOT a massive copyright violation, as you suggest. Would you please reinstate the material? Approaching this from another angle, if I wrote it from scratch, it would probably more or less mirror the same information anyway, as I wrote it originally. Using what I had already written did no more than save me time. Your further feedback would be appreciated. SPB41Sqn (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strike the above notice, assuming your claim to authorship of the material. However, this was not obvious during edits such as this where numerous paragraphs of uncited material were added, without indicating it as content from your site. It was not obvious that you were posting your own material to the article.
However, before reinstating your historical material, there is a question of whether it is under copyright ("non-free content") or released as "free content"? Wikipedia generally requires that its articles feature content under a free licence, with some limited exceptions described in Wikipedia:Non-free content. If your text is not currently on a free licence, then it either needs to be released under a free licence or else rewritten. See WP:DONATETEXT for further details. If your material is under an appropriate free licence, then the website itself may need to be updated to indicate the free licence status. Also note some legal considerations described in Wikipedia:Copyrights. Also note that any material contributed is subject to the various Wikipedia policies e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:V.
Further discussion and resolution would be best conducted through the article's talk page Dl2000 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your expertise and contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, especially on No. 41 Squadron RAF, it's just that there are various Wikipedia policies and practices to watch for. Dl2000 (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dl2000, I appreciate your consideration; thank you. Whilst my books are fully subject to copyright law, and I am strict about their use, I consider that anything I put online - unless I have added a clear statement to the contrary - is fair game for others, and therefore treat it as "free content". Ultimately, my aim is to promote and share information about 41 Squadron in any way I can, and am therefore happy for anything I put online to be used and distributed as people wish. If the material belongs to someone else, or I have another reason for restricting access, I will not put it online, whether on my website, my Facebook page, or the 41 Sqn Wikipedia page. My sole motivation is to correct the data that abounds elsewhere that is often inaccurate or just plain wrong. Nonetheless, I appreciate the issues you have raised and understand you cannot always know the source or the motivation. How do I show that the opening summary is released under a free licence?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPB41Sqn&oldid=732312097"