User talk:FOX 52

Welcome FOX 52!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,209,666 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]

Thanks

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] - 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Minor fix requested

Hi FOX52! A little more than a month ago, you've created EU28-further enlargement map (Russia modified).svg per my request at the Graphic Lab. There's a small mistake in this file I've initially missed: while the main body of Russia is colored green, its small exclave of Kaliningrad Oblast is not. Could you please change its color to that of the remainder of the country? Thanks!--R8R (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done- FOX 52 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--R8R (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F-104 images

Greetings, FOX 52, I hope you are doing well. I just wanted to give you an update regarding our earlier conversation about the F-104 Starfighter—I've not had any luck obtaining any images from Lockheed, but I am still trying. In the meantime I did locate a number of images already out on Wikimedia Commons, and I was wondering if you had any thoughts on them. I've put a gallery out on Talk:Lockheed F-104 Starfighter; I didn't know if you were watching that page so I thought I would ping you here. I would very much like to hear what you think. :) None of them are perfect but they have potential. I tried out the first image in my sandbox and it's not bad; do you think you could play around with it (or one of the others if you think it is better) and do your magic? CThomas³ (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'll have a look - FOX 52 (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MiG-41

Hey, could you take a look at Mikoyan MiG-41. There is a user who keeps adding the Russian Air Force as a user without a source, despite that violating Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL and Wikipedia:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS (especially since the Russian Air Force hasn't signed for the aircraft). Thanks!Garuda28 (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'll have a look - FOX 52 (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm going to revert tomorrow so that I don't break the 3RR. Do you believe that his edits warrants this action or should it be left as is?Garuda28 (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, eventually he'll get the idea - FOX 52 (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Military Aircraft

Hi. I noticed you removed lot of redundant information from List of active Indian military aircraft. Thanks for that. Could you also please check Indian Naval Air Arm and List of equipment of the Indian Army#Aircraft? Thanks. Sarvatra (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'll have a look FOX 52 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Aircraft lists by country can be a pain in the ass. On List of active Indian military aircraft I had serious issues back in the day trying to add the EL/W-2090 to the Beriev A-50. Now I see the original Russia/Israel origin has been altered. Now I will have to re-insert it with sources. Without the Israeli mention in national origin it is wildly incorrect. Without the EL/W-2090 it is just a big Russian cargo plane. (Sigh) Enjoy the brew! Irondome (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian low visibility roundel

Fox52, the roundel appears to be on the PAK FA. I realize that it’s not IOC yet, but is in service as a test aircraft. You think that would suffice for adding the roundel to Russian Air Force pages? Also not sure if it’s low vis or just an alternate one. Garuda28 (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: The problem is there are these images here and here, which are declared "Russian Air Force" while this one is still titled "Sukhoi Design Bureau" - So with this uncertainty we should wait to verify it isn't just Sukhoi's fancy paint job - FOX 52 (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks For Fixing NYPD Wahh

Wahh78 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces of Equatorial Guinea

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edits on Armed Forces of Equatorial Guinea without an explanation. Can you please explain why? Thanks, JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 05:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JackintheBox: Yeah please refrain from applying flag icons to the inventory table(s) per WP:MOSFLAG. Secondly your gonna have other editors fighting you on the caps issue, unfortunately the roll back feature doesn't allow individual change. - FOX 52 (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of active Ukrainian military aircraft

Can you explain your destructive edit? Because reasons.

Planes produced before 1992 must be labelled as manufactured in the Soviet Union and not 'Russia' which did not officially exist save as the Russian SFSR before that date.
You wrote that "clean up - drop dubious - unsubstantiated content". All information was based on reliable sourses. The «Народна армія» newspaper is the official newspaper of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. And here is a KhAZ-30 photo from official website of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine 1. So what is the problem, man? If you think that official newspaper and official website of MoD in unreliable sources, you must prove it Shadowcaster (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After having your so-called source translated it make no mention of Air Force use, and this is English Wikipedia, so the English sources will supersede those of less reliable information of non English origin - FOX 52 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statue image

Thank you so much for taking the request. What do you think about having the numbers on both the left and right sides and having the statues go from smallest to biggest so that the tallest is on the far right looking left? Anyhow, just a suggestion. Please do as you see fit. I'm not graphics person. Many thanks again! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah just gonna vector your image as is, no need to confuse the reader - FOX 52 (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. You know, the big statue is stretched. Can you fix that? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the request page for the end result - Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, FOX 52. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actual livery of CAF

The photo (I took it myself and uploaded it) shows the actual, grey livery of the CAF. The old olive/green one is no longer in use since 2015 - There are simply no more planes in use with this livery. Ivekbeg5 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivekbeg5: - The issue here is to show a decent view of the MiG-21 in Croatian's Air Force colors, regardless of the tone. How interesting that your so called "own work" (photo) has no Metadata connected to it, seems dubious - FOX 52 (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, FOX 52. There was obviously a misunderstanding - These colors (olive / green) are no longer the colors of the CAF (since 2015). All MiG-21 BisD are "grey" now. But OK, so be it. And just this information regarding the photo: I took it with my mobile phone during the AirVG 2018 in Velika Gorica (05/19/2018). Then I transfered it to my PC and uploaded it to https://commons.wikimedia.org following all steps I was asked to while uploading. There was no step or question about Metadata... Ivekbeg5 (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

Hi Fox, I apologize for not coming to you directly about the MQ-8C photo. I tend to avoid potential confrontation, and I also like to have my information straight before asking questions directly. In doing so, I ended up going behind your back, and the discussion spiraled far beyond my original question there. I honestly don't know of a case where you've ever intentionally uploaded a copyright photo, and really didn't think that was the case here. In the future, if I have an issue with you, I'll try to ask directly. - BilCat (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: No worries, but yeah in the future don't hesitate to ask any questions (it's all good) Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it well. Social interactions aren't one of my strong suits, if that needs saying. :) - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Badge

Please respond on the talk page of Special Air Service why you think this badge is accurate. The source is purely a forum and said forums even says it's not accurate. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

See here. - BilCat (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: Haha! see you need to trust my artistic wisdom ;-) ...many thanks, that's amesome - FOX 52 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lifted wing Yak-38.jpg

Hi Fox 52, I came across File:Lifted wing Yak-38.jpg in the Yakovlev Yak-38 article, and find the green lines very distracting, especially since the key is in Russian on the image file page, and thus functionality useless. Would it be possible to remove the lines from the photo, or better yet, find the original unaltered photo. (See, I do respect your abilities, even if I sometimes disagree with their application.) :) - BilCat (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: - let me take crack it, & I see what I can do - FOX 52 (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: See if this (file) will work - FOX 52 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks good to me. Thanks very much. What about renaming both files? "Lifted wing" is really meaningless in English when referring to a folding wing. - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, I'm not really capable of renaming files, you might want to ask a admin. Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYSA

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EDV1969 Garuda28 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: - Thanks, that hadn't occurred to me, good catch on that. - FOX 52 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Military aircraft insignia

Hi, i'm the author of the edit 2.42.118.114 at 02:07, 18 march 2019. I would like to discuss with you why did you rolled back my edit. In the explanation of the edit, I made clear the "old" italian roundel (the one with red and white bands of the same thickness) could not be considered a "former insignia" because is actually showed (and flown) on many aircraft owned by Aeronautica Militare Italiana, such the MB339 PAN used by Frecce Tricolori, and Airbus A319 for government authorities use. I think this roundel must be considered "current" and thus moved to the right section. What do you think? -- Sh2-240 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Flag

Greetings, due to your recent edits on the page of AFBiH, the same page (that is, source) HAS to show you the exact flag that is displayed on the page of the air force in subsections of the PDF file shown. Further, if you still do not locate the source, I am happy to provide you written permission from the Ministry of Defense of Bosnia and Herzegovina on clear usage on CC 4.0 and by the Act. 4 136.Information Share.

EDIT: If the flag has not yet been shown in the PDF file, it is possible that it has been adapted to civil criteria, unlike officials view since it has not been adapted to the align presidency. However, the flag still holds it place as it has been adopted by the MoD. - Take care, Kaly.

@KalyEV.: If you have any picture(s) of the so-called symbol & flag, to match with some meta data that would be best - FOX 52 (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korean People's Army Air Force

Hello, I am not removing or changing any reliably sourced information on the article, Korean People's Army Air Force. Instead I have added accurate information to the article and provided thoroughly cited sources to ensure credibility to the edits. Therefore, my actions are not meant to be disruptive and I would like to respectfully ask that you allow me to keep the accurate edits and refrain from removing my edits which contained accurate information and reliable sources. Thank you.

@Matthew Mangold: adding content requires a reliable source – this → ”video footage indicate Yak-18s conducting air to ground drills during DPRKAF competitions spectated by Leader Kim Jong Un” in not a reliable source please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more information – also please do not overload the inventory tables with nonessential text, - that content should be applied in one of the appropriate paragraphs – Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: Noted. I will address these suggestions. What about the other source for Yak-18. That linked to an official Wikipedia Article about the Yak-18 that mentioned that it is currently in service in the DPRKAF and included a source to that information point as well. Please let me know if they are appropriate changes. Matthew Mangold

@Matthew Mangold: Just make sure not to use Wikipedia itself, that's WP:CIRCULAR which is not allowed. - Also keep in mind its very doubtful that North Korea would be using a 74 year old airframe in todays world - FOX 52 (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: Thank you. There was a video posted by Stimme Koreas on youtube showing the Yak-18 being used in very limited numbers during a training competition. That's how I knew the DPRK operates the Yak-18 in very limited service. - Matthew Mangold.

Image(s) of N761LL

Hi and thanks for posting the image of N761LL (which was later re-registered as N72EX). It appears the image in question may have been originally posted for the 2015 public surplus auction of the helicopter from the State of Illinois. I'm not sure that it is public domain and free to use, though. According to Harvard, Illinois government documents are assumed to be copyrighted - I was thinking I could upload all the images in the surplus auction to Commons, but could not find an appropriate PD template to apply, and thought that maybe one could be created. By the way, it looks like Harvard posted a map showing which state governments assert copyright over their documents, as a guide. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mliu92: -yeah I came to the same conclusion not sure which route is the best (maybe fair non-free use)? - if you have any other idea's, that would be great. - FOX 52 (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: I think fair use is acceptable. The file needs to be reduced in size (<= 250px width) and a fair use template needs to be applied. Refer to w:File:The Girl from Venice (cover).jpg as an example. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guatamala roundel

From most of the images you linked too, your rendition is FAR too pale, and is closest to the one that is washed out from being in direct sunlight. I think 00AEDD is much closer. Cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NiD.29: - better?? -FOX 52 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, excellent work. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop N-102 Fang image

Fox, File:Northrop N-102 Fang patent.png has too much vertical whitespace, and is causing the infobox to be too long in Northrop N-102 Fang article, especially between Fig. 2 and 3. Is there anything that can be done to shorten the image? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'll put in a 4 square - FOX 52 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: - see how this works - FOX 52 (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems stretched horizontally on my tablet. I'll try to look at it on my computer in a few minutes. - BilCat (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah give it some time it takes a while for the system to catch up (it's clean on my desktop) - FOX 52 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks right on my desktop also. - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment of the Indonesian Air Force

Hi Fox, thank for your edits with the remaks "incidents are for the main - tables are for concise information - with wikilinks WP:WHENTABLE". Based on the explanation at WP WHENTABLE, should I re-write those aircraft accidents in a sub-paragraph or should I need to write in a totally new wiki page? Apprecite your kind feedbacks. Thanks SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SAaphIrEblUE: It should go in the Notable incidents section on the Indonesian Air Force page - please select only one's that are truly noteworthy - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated your valuable directions. Will do the needful and rewrite those passages under Notable incidents section on the Indonesian Air Force Thanks again, sir SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana Defence Force

Hi, hope you don't mind my dropping by, but I would appreciate you keeping an eye on Botswana Defence Force for a while, our serial restorer of dubiously-formatted tables is back. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - FOX 52 (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes am back and wont relent until it is made clear to me why my edits are/were reverted while Rwanda defence Force & Nigerian Army editors used my same table template in their pages and theirs remain unchanged, why not delete them also, after working so hard in research to update and improve that page from 2 paragraphs to what it is I dont understand why my imput now is being undermined without a reason by people who added nothing to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.79.68 (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be a community decision. If you want to be heard, you really do need to join the discussion on the article talk page, where other editors will see your comments. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Pakistan Air Force Emblem

Hi sir hope you're doing fine. Sir yesterday i updated the emblem of Pakistan Air Force on Wikipedia but you reverted my change. As a formal representative of Pakistan Air Force media I request that the emblem and the changes that were made by me are authentic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Air_Force. Regards Muhammad Iqrash muhammadiqrash@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqrashjanjua (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iqrashjanjua: - You need to verify it by citing a reliable source, for thosee change(s). We can not just go based on your word alone. cheers FOX 52 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... can you take look discussion about Pakistan Air Force logo on PAF talk page. Thanks. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Air Force page updates

Name of new Vice Chief is in this news. https://www.dawn.com/news/1528989/leghari-appointed-vice-chief-of-air-staff

And you can verify the logo which I updated, is also the same as displayed on http://paf.gov.pk/

Same about Youtube page it is mentioned in http://paf.gov.pk/ -> media

Regards Muhammad Iqrash muhammadiqrash@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqrashjanjua (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Air Force S-70i

Hi, I am member of Polish Wikipedia and I would like to correct yours lasy editions about the S-70i. So, that helicopters service in Polish Air Forces in 7th Special Operations Squadron (Special Forces Unit). That's Squadron belongs to 33rd Transport Base (Air Force) and that units are under command of 3rd Transport Aviation Wing not 1st Aviation Brigade (Land Forces). That's why these helicopters should be in Air Force not Land Force Aviation Brigade ;) Here is the confirmation of what I'm saying: [7] Polskiarmator123 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Polskiarmator123[reply]

the source you provided appears to be user-generated content, which is not allowed per WP:UGC/WP:SPS - so if you can find a more reliable source that would be great. - FOX 52 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is better source

https://www.defence24.pl/lepsze-mi-17-dla-eskadry-dzialan-specjalnych Polskiarmator123 —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image update

Hi, I was wondering if it's possible to give an update to File:New York Bldg. Height Comparison.svg? Ideally the graphic would include the latest record-breaking NYC skyscrapers: One World Trade Center, Central Park Tower, 111 West 57th Street, One Vanderbilt, 432 Park Avenue, 30 Hudson Yards, and the Empire State Building. $ɱ$ (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: Sorry for the delayed response, was there any particular bldgs. you thing would be relevant to the change(s) - don't know if all will fit- Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - and well I was especially hoping to update the Empire State Building's use of the image to show that there are more and more recent buildings to surpass it. I wouldn't mind the wide image with 7 buildings. If not, it could still be used for the taller buildings' articles and the main "List of tallest buildings in NYC" article.

ɱ

(talk) 05:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK let me see what I can do - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: - just a heads up I updated with 30 Hudson Yards bldg. - FOX 52 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Are you going to add any others too?

ɱ

(talk) 00:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P8 Poseidon in Royal Norwegian Air Force

Dear Sirs, I noticed your rollback due to WP:NOTNEWS regarding the P8. The issue though is that https://forsvaret.no/forsvarsmateriell/p-8 is not a newssite, but the official website for the Norwegian Armed Forces and its P-8 program. Is the problem that the source is not written in English? Anyway, the direct quote "For å videreføre en MPA- og ISR-kapasitet som kan møte dagens og fremtidens utfordringer har Forsvarsmateriell fått i oppdrag å anskaffe nye maritime patruljefly til erstatning for dagens seks P-3 Orion og tre DA-20 Jet Falcon" would directly translated become something like "To continue the MPA and ISR capability that can meet today's and future challenges, Defense Material has been commissioned to acquire new maritime patrol aircraft to replace today's six P-3 Orion and three DA-20 Jet Falcon" (2017). Best regards Yosh3000 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosh3000: -This is an Encyclopedia, we are not here to apply a collection of speculative or non-notable presumptive events. Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

F-16s

I thought we had cleared that up back in 2018 [8]. The C/D variants are not exclusively for training, they are combat aircraft as well. Khirurg (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg:- OK I think were confusing aircraft, my "split" was in reference to the Mirage 2000 (variants) 16 EG's and 24 5 MkII's - On my end I saw it F-16 (39 D's training number) remain the same, with just position change in the table. May be best in the future to avoid total reverts as this could’ve been cleared first time around plus you wiped out my citation needed notice as well. - FOX 52 (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japan F-35B

Hey, I’ve noticed a few edits that significantly add content about the Japanese use of the F-35B on these articles, but I don’t know much about the specific topic. It also says they are under order, and I’m not the most familiar with Wikipedia policy on this. Would you be able to take a look and make sure everything looks right?

Thanks. Garuda28 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: - No problem, I'll have a look - FOX 52 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rafale logo

Hi. Thanks for moving it into the article. I'm sorry about reverting, I meant to rollback (and more importantly) provide an edit summary. A plain revert without an edit summary was rude, apologies again. Mark83 (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark83: - not a problem, I was just trying to follow the standardize appearance for the aircraft info boxes. - FOX 52 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sought for draft infobox Law Enforcement Unit

Hi FOX 52, you are familiar with Template:Infobox military unit (MU) and Template:Infobox law enforcement agency (LEA) - Netherlands Coastguard in May and United States Revenue Cutter Service discussion last month. I've designed a law enforcement unit infobox User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/doc. Help:Infobox and Help:Designing infoboxes - I'm supposed to seek comment before deploying it, and as Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement is inactive, I have to contact editors directly that are familiar with the infoboxes to seek comment. Can you please review it - anything you would change, add, suggest, etc.. It will be similar to military using Template:Infobox national military then for units MU. There is User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/testcases for testing.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneously edit

We are editting the page same time. I am adding mew aircrafts of M-346FAs AslanX89 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you paste this article in related row please? |Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master | Italy ||Fighter/Attack||M-346FA||N/A||6 unit will be arrive in the early of 2021, total will be 12 -AslanX89 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AslanX89: - A "letter of intent" is not a signed contract so we can not add to the table until it enters the production line - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deal is undergoing confident. You can see in the news that buyer's name is kept confident for obvious reasons ( weapon supply embargo on Azerbaijan) - We already have one of or, see citation https://az.trend.az/azerbaijan/politics/2752160.html AslanX89 (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so "blogs" and "User-generated content" per WP:UGC are not reliable sources - If one is in inventory (as claimed in May 2017) then why is this article titled "Will Azerbaijan buy M-346 FA light fighter jets?" - FOX 52 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am stubborn enough can revert but i will not insist for now and i will let you to bereverted it by yourself when Azerbaijan Airforce receives the aircrafts next year. AslanX89 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian air force

Im sorry but going through the page of the egyptian airforce of Wikipedia i found alot of false information edited by you good sir/lady, why? Awannabepilot69 (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ma'm/Sir , World Air Forces has been proven many time to be an unreliable sources and an outdated source to current events , such as the egyptian recent Su-35 deliveries , AW149 / AW189 orders , C130 ELINT , the E2 Hawkeyes current numbers and the completion of Rafale / Mig 29m / Ka-52 deliveries. Please do not edit the Egyptian AIr force page right away but instead prove me wrong and we can debate about it .

Convair F-102 Delta Dagger

Hi Fox, I'm trying to find a good, color in-flight photo for the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger article. However, I'm having difficulty finding one I like. I'd like one that shows the delta wing at a good angle, but the best ones that fit that criteria have other problems. Can you help? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: I'll keep my eyes peeled for one - FOX 52 (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US enlisted ranks

Looks like there needs to be a consensus for this. I would greatly appreciate your input, for or against. :) Neovu79 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BDF

Could you explain your recent revert of my edit of Botswana Defence Force? The original history section doesn't look too good and IMO the international cooperation and domestic operations belong there, as part of the section recording the nation's military history.--RM (Be my friend) 20:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reenem: - Actually it was a mistake revert which I corrected on my next edit (here) - So your layout has not changed - FOX 52 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian C-130 inventory

Hi friend, thanks for your recent edit on List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces page. About the C-130 Hercules inventory I want to inform that RMAF has a total of 14 unit where 4 is tanker (originaly only 2 tanker but another 2 unit converted to tanker circa 2000) and the rest is transport, so the separation in the table will be 4 tanker and 10 transport. Flight Global only stated that 9 C-130s in transport table because actualy the another one aircraft is in storage. The aircraft in storage cannot be eliminated from inventory because it still considered in service and not written off. So I hope we can change the quantity of C-130 in transport table from 9 to 10. This is the sources: (https://www.flightglobal.com/honeywell-eyes-malaysia-f/a-18d-c-130-upgrade-work/132254.article)

(https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2018/04/25/honeywell-aerospace-offering-extensive-upgrades-for-rmaf-c-130/)

And I do hope you can update you local copy of Malaysian air force inventory to the latest inventory. Cheers :) Tomahawkarf (talk)

@Tomahawkarf: by all means if you have sourcing to update the table please do so. I'll fix it now. Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Air Force

Need attention on the modernization section. People are adding random stuff from German Air Force into the page of Bangladesh Air Force. If someone likes to contribute to German Air Force, please feel free to contribute to German Air Force page. People also writing the same sentence again and again such as "Bangladesh will buy European fighter jets" after each paragraph. It confuses the reader. Please maintain tone and neutrality of the Wikipedia. Thanks again. Canberra2021 (talk)

Unsourced roundels

I have prepared a list of roundels that either lack sources entirely, or are sourced only to the Roundels Of The World website which has been shown to be unreliable. Would you support deleting these images? I do not believe we should be hosting them if they are hoaxes. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: - Looks good - go for it! - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to hear. However I am uncertain on how to go about it. As you can see in a previous DR, the image being a hoax was not accepted by an admin. I think perhaps a mass DR would be appropriate, but it is complicated by the fact that the images are by several different uploaders. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: - Ok try that and link the DR to me, so I can chime in. - FOX 52 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German Air Force

Can you please explain to me why you insist on adding inaccuracy to this page?

Tornado is multinational, not German.
Typhoon is multinational, not German. If you're going to get technical the fundamental design is British (with commercial input from continental companies). The radar is derived from UK tech. And the engines are a result of a UK development programme. So if we were going to single out one nation's participation I'd lean British. But it's not. Nor is it German. It's a collaborative programme.
Airbus aircraft are multinational, not French.
Transall C-160 was produced as a joint venture between France and Germany. It's not solely French.

I cant figure out your agenda here. But let's stick to facts. Mark83 (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark83: First off there is no agenda here, and I had originally been going with Europe as the origin - until an Admin had reverted to this. -(Europe is fine by me) Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback limitations reminder

Hi FOX 52, this message is to remind you that rollback is a powerful tool with rules that those using it must follow. Please review WP:ROLLBACKUSE, in particular this edit [9] appears to fall outside the allowed use cases. As you well know "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning.” I’m disappointed in you, I hope this is the last time I see you misuse rollback. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Fox, I use Twinkle, which allows one to add an edit summary to rollbacks. Rollbacks with edit summaries are permitted without the normal rollback restrictions. Hope that helps. BilCat (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BilCat it is a little frustrting not to be able to leave any comments on the roll back - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand as it was frustrating to me too. Twinkle does a lot of other things, so if it works with your browser, it's worth having. If not, you can try User:Gracenotes/rollback.js, which also adds summaries to rollbacks. I installed it first, and kept it after I installed Twinkle. BilCat (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you roll back my table edit in Bangladesh Air Force article?

User:FOX 52 Why are you roll back my table edit everytime in Bangladesh Air Force article? May I know the reason? Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nafis Fuad Ayon: - Because we don't add flags to the table per WP:MOSFLAG - and further, the sub-headings and title(s) are incorrect ie: "basic and advanced turboprop flight trainer", the Grob G 120TP is just a trainer. - FOX 52 ^talk! 17:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:FOX 52 Then why don't you just remove this instead of removing other sourced information and full table arrangement? Copy paste from your notepad is not fair. This removed new information added by other users every time which is not in your notepad. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry.

Argentine Air Force The reference is on the website infodefensa.com, also on the official site of the Argentine Ministry of Defense. For some reason he would not let me put the reference, it tells me that there is an error. I request that you put it, thank you, regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecBarrioYT (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the Lockheed L-100-30s from Ethiopian airforce

The source says they had two Lockheed L-100-30s,[10] One was shot on June 23 2021.[11] 2-1=1. They still have One left.--Garmin21 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to the edits made as it was not removed - FOX 52 ^talk! 19:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Air Force

Thanks for trying to revert that undiscussed move. I saw that earlier today, but didn't revert it as I wasn't sure what was going on. However, a cut and pastes is almost always the wrong way to do it. I don't think a histmerge is necessary here, so I just did a page swap, something only page movers (me) and admins can do. If you need help with something like that again, feel free to ask me, and I'll. look at it. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: Yeah I thought is was a simple swap, but the problems that can arise Thanks for the fix - FOX 52 ^talk! 22:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. BilCat (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

You may find that some editors here don't care to be unknowingly dragged into disputes, be it a content dispute, layout dispute, etc. Your recent comments on another editor's user talk page could be seen as such, if not an attempt at canvassing. In the future, it would be wiser to take advantage of the resources available for such issues, such as the Help Desk, the Teahouse, the Village Pump or any one of the related WikiProjects, among others. This would also save you the trouble of creating a duplicate article in a sandbox. Hope you find this helpful, have a nice day. - wolf 04:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Asking another editor on how a page(s) displays on their device, is not "unknowingly dragging" anyone into anything (I never ask them to opine), and if done by the guidelines canvassing is allowed. In the future, it may be wise to Assume good faith in your fellow editor(s) - Cheers FOX 52 ^talk! 05:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) It looks like I am being dragged into a dispute anyway, and not by FOX 52! It certainly wasn't canvassing if he didn't mention what it was in regards to, and I didn't go looking for it either. I do appreciate FOX asking for my assistance, as we've sometimes had some sharp disagreements. I certainly don't see the use in this discussion at all. Makes me wonder why Wolf didn't go to "the Help Desk, the Teahouse, the Village Pump or any one of the related WikiProjects, among others." :) BilCat (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica Constabulary Force emblem

Could you please upload the Jamaica Constabulary Force emblem as a separate file on Commons? Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 15:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done FOX 52 ^talk! 18:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Air Force article edits (image overload, icons and table inventory)

Hello Fox52! I can agree with you about image overload although I think its in the eye of the beholder whether or not there is overload of images since there is no strict parameter or Wiki policy (that you reffered to) to measure image overloading. My intention was to put an image for each, lets say, emblematic type of an aircraft (one for fighter jet, one for transport, one for helicopter, and one for a drone) that is in SAF inventory. So there were 4 pictures, plus one for air-defence system and one for the radar - total of six pictures, 2 more than now. Two more pictures wouldn't make that much of a difference to count as overloading in my opinion especially since they fitted perfectly (in line with contures of inventory tables without spilling over to the next section). But OK, I understand your view and let it be that way. Same goes with the icons, I had reasons for putting them too (in article about the other branch, Serbian Army, icons are used in a similar fashion), but I get your point and so be it like that. I really can't agree with you about the aircraft inventory table and I am asking you to consider it a bit more. You warned me about removing sourced content, but it seems that you missed to notice that my edit regarding aircraft inventory was sourced as much as previous version or even more. For each item I provided a source, source with an updated info and I fail to see which Wiki policy I wasn't adhering to. I did the same with air-defence systems and radars, updated both of the tables, and it seems that you are OK with those edits and somehow edits on aircraft are problematic to you. My intention in each case (for aircraft as well as for air-defence systems and radars) was/is to update the table as there were some outdated info on it, let's stick to the aircraft table to give you examples:

An-2 transport jet is retired i.e. not in operational use since 2014 (that info is mentioned in the source cited on version you reverted to, it is in Serbian but you can use Google Translate or Deepl), even primary source which is multiple times cited in the table, flightglobal, doesn't list it either. So I fail to understand logic of listing that aircraft in the table?
G-2 trainer jet is retired from the Air Force in 2009; there is only one operational plane left used for testing purposes only and it is not in the Air Force but in Technical Testing Center, testing facility of Armed Forces in general (attached institution to the General Staff and completely separate of the Air Force) - it is mentioned in the first two sentences in the article, source (aviation web-portal) is in Serbian again, but is easily translated using web tools.
J-22 attack aircraft there were 6 operational J-22 aircraft in 2021 out of total of 12 in the inventory, not total of 17 as cited since rest were retired. source
I splitted MIG-29 to 11 in use (modernized to SM standard) and 3 for conversion training, just as primary source, flightglobal, multiple times cited in the table you reverted to did
I provided sourced info about current orders for some of the aircraft in "Notes" subsection on the table, and don't know why it is problematic to you?
Couple of sentences before the table were suffice as content is already mentioned in previous section (for operating airbases in Structure section, for aircrafts in history section), no need for double mentioning.

I truly believe we are on the same page here and that you don't have problem with improving the article with updated and sourced info. Improving article in that fashion was my intention from the start, not removing sourced content just for sake of it, but to replace some of the outdated info with updated one (providing the sources all along), in line with Wiki policy. Hoping that we will find common ground, I send you regards, Klačko (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Klačko: Thank you for the response, I've made the corrections per your sources - I do have 2 issues - can you verify the following orders (Mil Mi-17 order) I couldn't find any mention in this source and the (H145 order) appears to be for the Serbian Army, if thats the case then the order should be placed on the appropriate article - Cheers FOX 52 ^talk! 16:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Mil Mi 17 is mentioned in that very source that both of us cited, paragraph 3 and 4 of the article, following is Google translate from Serbian:

Serbia is certainly in the worst position, given that not only does it have in its arsenal significant amounts of weapons and military equipment from the Soviet Union period, but it is in the process of acquiring serious combat systems from Russia such as Pancir S-1M, Mi-17V5 and Mi-35M.

It is about an additional order of four Mi-35M combat helicopters, three Mi-17V5 transporters and two more Panzer batteries, this time in a somewhat modernized version that should eliminate the shortcomings in the fight against unmanned aerial vehicles that have been observed on the Syrian battlefield.

As for H145M order it is common misconception or shall I say lost in translation since Serbian Armed Forces (what would be equal to the US military as a whole or French Armed Forces) are commonly translated just as Serbian Army. Serbian Army is in fact ground/land forces component (litterally, Serbian Army is translated as Ground Army) and is equivalent of the US Army or French Armee de Terre (Land Army). Serbian Army doesn't operate any planes (nor helicopters) whatsoever, sole user of aircrafts in Serbian Armed Forces is Serbian Air Force. Therefore, this is appropriate article.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

images and info

I see the point ,but there is no section for images, so doesn't make sense to no use flags for origins section . It's perfectly to use in other pages of Wikipedia with tables . For the notes section it can be add little bit more information ,it's just makes the table bigger ,but gives more info about it . Same goes for this ,in a lot of pages of Wikipedia it's used in tables . IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formating issues

Can you explain what formating issues so I DO NOT add images or whatever else is problematic in ONLY air force sections of Wikipedia ? IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images break table functionality on cell phones and other smaller screens and make navigating it almost impossible, and most of these are simply decoration, which is against Wikipedia's norms. Provide links to the wikimedia page instead if there must be something to illustrate it. - FOX 52 ^talk! 19:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UCAV list.

User:FOX 52 May I know why are you removed multiple UCAV models from the "Unmanned combat aerial vehicle" article "Current" section? example: TAI Aksungur. I want to add missing information there. Do you agree with me?Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nafis Fuad Ayon: Because as stated Below are a list of some current dedicated armed UAV's: Wikipedia is not a directory WP:NOTCATALOG, there is no need to keep expanding, the list, if you wish switch out Baykar Bayraktar Akıncı, for the TAI Aksungur, as a compromise - FOX 52 ^talk! 03:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Air Force aircraft list

Hey there, I saw you did a cleanup for the RoAF current inventory and that's good, but there are some issues. First, you seem to have added back the source from "thenewstribe", which as I noted when removing it, is irrelevant to the variant of the MiGs. Even more the source is no longer accessible. You also split the F-16AM/BM versions again, if you read my notice on the edit, the F-16 number is better kept only in one place and the variant to be mentioned in the Notes column. This way it matches with the C-130s and the IAR 330s, and it also avoids future confusion for readers. Alin2808 (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alin2808: No, the break creates formatting issues - and as a conversion trainer, there is no confusion if it's placed under the sub-heading of "trainer" - Cheers FOX 52 ^talk! 04:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: Very well, if the break has formatting issues then remove it. But the edits done by IP or other users to the number of 14 to 17 makes it pretty clear that it creates confusion. People just don't bother reading the whole table and usually just check the first time an aircraft appears. So it's best handled the same way as the C-130s and the IAR 330s with the BM variant to be added to the notes. Plus just because the BM is a "conversion trainer" doesn't mean it's not used for other missions as well. Also, for "surplus" I really don't know what the article meant. The Norwegian F-16s were all retired, there is no surplus see (maybe they meant "additional F-16s"?) Alin2808 (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"People just don't bother reading the whole table and usually just check the first time an aircraft appears.", is entirely your opinion, and is not supported by any facts. - So it stays where it is - FOX 52 ^talk! 21:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case then I shouldn't have needed to revert several edits on that list before, if you were to look at the edit history of the article (as I count it, it happened 10 times already, and can bet will happen again in the future). Also, don't want to sound rude, but you seem to be overly reliant on Flight Global, both in using the same way they present the inventory tables and, again, using the same word ("surplus") from their article despite not being the best one. Remember we need to present the information using sources, not outright copy from those sources. Alin2808 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alin2808: I've been at this for 10 years, and unfortunately there will always be someone who makes poor edits. Regarding flight Global they have generally been a good source - Now whether its 10 or 12 or 15 aircraft, the best we can do is keep it close to the approximant count. All sources including government one's do lack accuracy, as numbers aren't updated daily. Further Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a news site or a military blog, so these tables are something extra for the reader. - FOX 52 ^talk! 05:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except in this case the number of F-16s is known, as is the board number of each aircraft. But aside from that, why would you rather have to undo wrong edits from users who didn't read the whole table than making the table clear from the beginning? Wikipedia should be written to be understood by all and in this case it's clear that there will always be people who won't understand those numbers. Also "generally a good source" is not good, if they make a mistake then you don't blindly follow their mistake, you use other sources to verify if it's correct or not. Alin2808 (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your (focused) trust & reliance on a magazine as source (WAF/FlightGlobal) over governmental sources such as Ministries of Defences - they are clearly wrong on inventories for various Air Forces! 2A02:1810:3E21:A500:D99:8CC5:4F23:926 (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, the issue regarding the WAF as a source has also been discussed in the past (example on Talk:Romanian Air Force#World Air Forces source). Alin2808 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello, i am sorry for wrting this in the wrong topic i dont know how to create a new one but why did you revert my change of algerian air force 46.26.171.216 (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Awarded for your continued excellent work in creating vector graphics. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Cdjp1 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USMC Aviation

You are already familiar with wp:brd and wp:ew and wp:onus, etc., etc. If you disagree, take it to the talk page. I also know you're aware of the mos:imgloc & table issues, so... why stir up shit? Again...? How about just working collaboratively toward communication and improvement? How about you give that try? Have a nice day - wolf 08:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: No am restoring what you changed, you need to make your case on the talk page. I've looked though several different screens sizes and find your claims questionable. -And it's MOS:IMAGELOC. not "mos:imgloc" - please do not revert again until a solution is found- FOX 52 ^talk! 18:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that with that diff, you're referring to the images by the table vs a gallery? First off, you changed more than that, and it wasn't to improve the page, it was purely disruptive. As for the images, we've already been over this, just because you claim to not see a problem, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and you have no basis to claim I'm lying about it. Actually improving the page by updating stats, refs, etc. is one thing, but when you deliberately change the layout and/or appearence, for no apparent reason, leaving it worse off than you found it, is again purely disruptive. As for: "And it's MOS:IMAGELOC. not "mos:imgloc""... what a bizarre thing to nitpick about, especially since if you had bothered to look, mos:imgloc and MOS:IMAGELOC are the same thing, as in they link to the same place. - wolf 01:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: After further analysis, I do not see your issue with the table to image issue problem - FOX 52 ^talk! 03:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... like I said, we've been over this before, so I'm not particularly shocked by this. That said, why not just take a reasonable approach then and use galleries, like the ones alredy in place on numerous articles? This would remove any doubt about the issues raised. Seems reasonable, no? - wolf 03:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Why do we have to sacrifice laptop / desktop view, which on the smaller screens places the image(s) before the content. A gallery pushes it down after the content. Per: MOS:IMAGELOC "Do not place an image at the end of the previous section as this will not be visible in the appropriate section on mobile devices" - FOX 52 ^talk! 17:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read that again, as that is not what has happened. - wolf 22:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is about images that come before the content, as you said a gallery pushes it down after the content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PNG police insignia

Hi FOX 52. Hope you are doing well. I was really impressed by your work on various defence and police insignia last time, and wanted to ask if you could also upload the rank insignia of the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary? Peter Ormond 💬 01:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Ormond: - sorry on the late replay, I could upload'em, but I don't know the copyright status. - FOX 52 ^talk! 23:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Air Force

Hi, FOX 52 The Turkish Air Force, can you check that article? One user Mercresis (talk · contribs) is pretty active there and added and changed a lot of content. Also he created section "Timeline of battles and operations" and I haven't seen that section in any similar article, and I found it redundant and I removed it as the same was in the infobox listed, but that user keep to restore it. And I don't want to be involved in edit wars, but well he does not appear collaborative even if I opened the talk page discussion. Thank you. Nubia86 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nubia86: gotcha, I'll send them a message - FOX 52 ^talk! 03:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I also restored things what that user moved from infobox of that page, and still stays my message at the talk page. So let's see. Nubia86 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image help

Hi Fox, when you have time, could you cut File:Douglas 1211-J and 1240.png in half, and post each half as a separate file? I'm not quite sure how to do it, as it might be a bit tricky to get the right amount of blank space in the cut region from the middle. I can try if you're not able or willing, for whatever reasons. Just asking since you generally know what you're doing when you edit images, and I don't! Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah No problem- FOX 52 ^talk! 22:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: see if this is what you are looking for File:Douglas model 1240.png and File:Douglas model 1211-J.png - FOX 52 ^talk! 22:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks very much! BilCat (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Air Force

Hello, Fox. I see you reverted my edit for the F-16C back to F-16V. How do you differentiate it with the single-seat and twin-seat variants of the F-16V? RPC7778 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For making File:Tangiers1.svg and File:Tangiers2.svg QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Mil Mi-24

World Air Forces 2024 lists them in service with the "Ukrainian Army Aviation" branch, not the Ukrainian Air Force. Also the IISS Military Balance 2023 (page 202), lists them in service with the Ukrainian Army not the Air Force. Mr. Komori (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Komori: OK in the future please state the source "doesn't'mention the type in service with the Air Force" or something like that - FOX 52 ^talk! 00:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it. Mr. Komori (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Folds of Honor

Hi! Just wanted to give you a heads up that I draftified Folds of Honor. You can keep working on it at Draft:Folds of Honor and submit it through AfC once you think it's ready. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of the Bangladesh Air Force (BAF).svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Seal of the Bangladesh Air Force (BAF).svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kys5g^talk! 13:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:H2 TV logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:H2 TV logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Folds of Honor

Hello, FOX 52. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Folds of Honor, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lockheed T-33

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Arctic Thunder 160729-F-YH552-021 - edit1.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RAF Red Arrows emblem.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RAF Red Arrows emblem.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji Police logo

Hey FOX 52! Hope you are well. Could you upload an SVG file of the Fiji Police logo? Here are other pictures for reference. [12] [13][14] Many thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 11:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]