User talk:Fox260

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

9 Squadron (Belgian Air Force)[edit]

I believe my article should be merged into yours; I am willing to do this. Of course, the final article should contain the entire history of the squadron. My addition would simply beef up the beginning of your article.

You needn't be shy about editing this WP article. It is on my watch list, and I will back you. It seems English is not your first language, but that should not be a drawback. I am a professional writer and can smooth out your English, but I have no second language. You, on the other hand, seem to have the foreign language skills to properly place this article, and to correct any mistakes such as the one I copied in my article.

Please continue working on this article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


Yes, I would be pleased if you would merge both articles, and please correct my English. I've always thought it was not too bad :). I'm not shy about editing this article, since I started it. I was talking about expanding other peoples' articles. I suppose that will pass with experience. Anyway, I've found a stub about 9 squadron's former parent unit, that contained outdated information, and I've corrected and amplified that. 1st Wing (Belgium)

I mean to keep working on this article, but I have some questions about referencing :

  • besides the book I already mentioned, I have some photocopies that I've used, but they could come from either of two books. Can I use them as reference ?
  • can one use references that were not publicised ? (correspondence, witnesses,...) ?

Thank you for the support.

Fox260 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


Actually, your command of English is excellent; certainly, it is superior to most of the community college students I have taught here in the U.S.A. However, I have repeatedly run into European Wikipediaists who decline to contribute to English Wikipedia because of uncertainty about their English usage. I always try to encourage their contribution, but most lack your courage. Bravo for you!

Now, concerning your questions:

1a. You need to match up your photocopies with their parent books. Google book search can be useful for that. If you look up your book(s) on it, you may be able to match photocopy with text. Google will give you all the info you need for citation and reference. Use author's family name and the book's page number(s) in your citation thus:

    • Open cite; Author's family name; page number(s); close cite.
    • Example: (Details become apparent in Edit View:)[1]

1b. For your reference section/bibliography, a slight rearrangement of the Google book search data is simply easier than it appears. Copy and paste it, then move the author name(s) to the lead:

    • Author's name; book title; year printed; publisher; year printed; ISBN (if known).
    • Example: Jones, Joe. An Idiot's Guide to Whatever. Clueless Press, 2010. ISBN 12345678910123.

2. Your second question is trickier. WP forbids original research; it also frowns upon use of primary materials because they are raw material unevaluated by historians. Your best bet is to find the same information in a reliable text; that text would then be a secondary or tertiary source that could be cited and referenced. Otherwise, I would recommend sitting on the information until you are more experienced at writing for WP.

I hope the above suggestions are helpful. Your present citations are almost on the mark, as are your references.

Please feel free to ask me for help; I am delighted to assist you.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


My article has now become a redirect to your article. In effect, my article has been deleted.

I have added a reference, and tinkered with your Reference section, adding an Endnotes section for the citations. I altered my citations from my working format to correct them to Modern Language Association guidelines, which seem to be most acceptable to WP copy editors.

I left you the opportunity to mimic my changes; I hope that will help teach you some basics. However, if you find you still have problems, I am still available to help you.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Indeed, I'm still discovering things about the references. On the other hand, I'm still bothered by the fact that a lot of information in the first paragraphs is about the 1ière Escadrille. I propose to split that off into a separate article, because 1 escadrille was not only the origin of 9 Escadrille. (Another) 1 escadrille continued to be one of the units of the Aviation Militaire Belge. I prepared a draft at User:Fox260/1ière Escadrille. The title could be either that, or "1 Squadron", so that it could be expanded later to describe the history of the actual and still existing 1 Squadron (Belgian Air Force).

Fox260 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


It is a rather common occurrence for a military unit to change its designation, or even its entire mission. The 1ière Escadrille was not disbanded, nor was it apparently a forerunner of today's 1 Squadron of the Belgian Air Force. (Here, I will bow to your expertise; correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is what you are telling me above.) The history of such redesignated units is usually included in its successor, as I have done.

The solution for that may be adding the relevant listings to the 1 Squadron disambiguation page. One listing for the WWI squadron; one listing for the present day unit.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


The present day 1 Squadron has the same number and symbol than the 1ere escadrille. Although the line was broken, I think both stories belong together. I know 1st Squadron members see the 1ère Escadrille also as the origin of their unit.
I've found a stub about 1st Squadron (Belgium), and I've used your article to expand that. I also added that article to the 1 Squadron disambiguation page.
1ère Escadrille de chasse redirects to the article 9 Squadron (Belgian Air Force). How can I make it redirect to 1st Squadron (Belgium) ?

Fox260 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


Because unit designations are sometimes duplicated, as in the present case, military historian(s) in the host country's armed forces usually determine lineage of a unit. Although their decisions are sometimes controversial, they are usually considered definitive. Have you checked for a military historian's ruling on these unit lineages?

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


Followup to above:

I have requested assistance on the redirects from a more experienced editor, who is also an administrator. Do not be surprised if Dravecky shows up.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


It is true I still have to adapt the references I used for expanding the 1st Squadron article. The books I used are also the ones recommended by the Royal Army Museum in Brussels. They trace the lineage through the unit's symbol and traditions. So 1ère Escadrille (1917) and 1st Squadron (present day) share the same lineage, although in the 1920 and 30's several 1st squadrons existed.
The redirect issue is resolved. I found the answer in the help pages : once on the target page, you click on "redirected from" below the article title, and this takes you to the redirect page, that can be edited.
I've modified all links to the page "9me Escadrille de Chasse" to 9 Squadron (Belgian Air Force), except the one on your user page, in the list of articles.
I've checked again the French ortograph of numbers : seems we were both wrong : it's not 9me, nor 9ième, but 9ème. For 9ème escadrille this issue is resolved (except for the redirect). For 11ème I plan a similar article as for 9 Squadron, since WWI traditions went well into the 20's, there never were duplicate 11 Squadrons and the Squadron still exists today. That would leave the issue of correcting the titles for 10ème escadrille and the redirect pages (5me, 9me and 11me).

Fox260 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


WOW! Impressive.

Are you going to be writing articles on other Belgian air squadrons? If so, you should be aware that I created the following stubs to link to biographies of Belgian World War I aces: 5me Escadrille de Chasse, 10me Escadrille de Chasse, 11me Escadrille de Chasse.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


Thank you.
Yes, I am aware of your other articles. I was referring to them in my last sentence.
For the moment, I only plan to write on 11 Squadron. I would prefer writing a new article (in which I would integrate the information of yours, like you have done for 9 Squadron), rather than expanding the stub, for two reasons :

1 The perspective would be the present day squadron, of which the origins trace back to 11ème Escadrille de Chasse.

2 As I've already explained, the actual title contains a spelling error (11me in stead of 11ème).

What it would look like would be very similar to the article about 9 Squadron. The draft is at User:Fox260/Drafts.
It would be nice to do an article on every still existing training squadron in the Belgian Air Force, but the histories of 5 and 7 Squadrons are much harder to trace.

Fox260 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


At this point, it seems I can bow out. You seem to have the Belgian Air Force well researched. In turn, I was only creating stubs about the squadrons both to spark interest in a fuller history of the units, and to link to the biographies of the Belgian flying aces. In line with the latter, I should hope you will have a section in your article about notable personnel, and will include links to the WWI aces.

Incidentally, the spelling errors noted come from my cited sources. I wasn't even original enough to make them on my own.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for the encouragement. Maybe I insisted too hard on the French spelling, I just wanted to explain why I preferred creating a new article rather than expanding the stub. And I've moved the draft to 11 Squadron (Belgian Air Force). I think I have included all information that was in the stub. The article is also added to the 11 Squadron disambiguation page. I leave it up to you to decide what needs to be done with the stub.
What I plan to do next is writing the Belgian Air Force to obtain permission for including the different Squadron insignia.

Fox260 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi Fox260, As per your request, The cleanup tagging is actually in reference to the layout, nothing to do with the content(They are excellent!) The layout is a little cluttered and the images seems like all over the page. Perhaps you can rearrange them into a gallery section? You can refer to Red Arrow for ideas. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠ ♠ 03:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:HanriotDupont1 H75 Hendon.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:HanriotDupont1 H75 Hendon.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MorganKevinJ(talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Sopwith Camel Cremers.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Sopwith Camel Cremers.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MorganKevinJ(talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Beauvechain[edit]

When I polished up the mentions of Goetsenhoven and Brustem, I was aware the job was only half-done - I was too tired/lazy at the time to do the job to the bottom. You were very kind to take over and make exactly those adjustments I knew to be missing: accept my heartfelt gratitude. It is really nice to see the idea of co-authorship actually working. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Australian Defence Force Basic Flying Training School[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Australian Defence Force Basic Flying Training School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

After 20 months this article is little more than two sentences. No attempt has been made to demonstrate notability or to identify the source of the content.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dolphin (t) 07:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Fox260. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Fox260. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Jones, page 86