Contents

User talk:FOX 52: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:19, 13 January 2018

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

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.

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

Some helpful Pages:

• Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style
• Conflict of interest
• Independent reliable sources
• Referencing for beginners
• Verifiability of source information
• Notability criteria for companies
• Policy regarding self promotional and advertising articles
• What wikipedia is not

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

HiFOX 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]

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

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]

Heya FOX, I saw your editto160th 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.

• File:Special Operations Command Central insignia.jpg
• File:USAF Combat Control emblem.jpg
• File:United States Air Force Pararescue Emblem "That Others May Live".jpg

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

	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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

		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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

Hello - you removed an Albanian Air Force roundel, noting that it wasn't sourced. I've since found a book that confirms that roundel was used by Albania during the Communist period (unfortunately, it doesn't give a date when it was first adopted). I don't know if citing the book as the source would be sufficient to include the red star roundel? Please advise. snd3054 21:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

Thanks for the Missile Wing images!

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

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]