User talk:VC10K3

Welcome!

Hello, VC10K3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Thanks for your work on No. 16 Squadron RAF. I note that in your edit summaries you say you've got the info largely from Air Historical Branch - Wikiepdia really prefers the use of published sources see WP:Reliable sources - at the very least you should indicate what information comes from what document, so that others can more easily check it out for themselves if they wish. David Underdown (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, I haven't got much time to read many of the tutorials hence the trail and error approach that I've adopted thus far! I've struggled to find any info on the web about 16 Squadron, especially its recent reformation (I am one of the instructors on the sqn). Next on my list is to replace the badge that is displayed as it is incorrect - should be gold key over black key; we managed to find an original design on the walls of the RAF Club in London. Hopefully won't need to edit much from now on. VC10K3 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see even the main RAF website doesn't have it relisted as a current squadron. Is there really no connection with the RAF College (other than co-location) - I'll admit that I was guessing when I added it to the lead. Might be an idea for you to look at some of the other RAF squadron pages for an idea of how the referencing should be done No. 410 Squadron RAF has had a fair amount of work done on it recently. My father-in-law served as a Wing Commander at Cranwell for a while, now retired he looks after the memorial room (museum) at Linton, he had some time instructing in 207 Sqn there too. David Underdown (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no idea who runs the RAF website, but all the emails I've sent have had no response. There isn't a connection with the college, 16 sqn is one of three sqns that instruct new RAF and international pilots (other 2 are 85 at Church Fenton and 57 at Wyton). We do instruct the guys after they finish at the college but they're commissioned officers by the time we get them (they'd winge at being called cadets after all they've been through!). I'll have a look at 410 Sqn (not heard of them before!), again didn't realise there was a museum at Linton either (did my flying training there in 2000-01). My efforts with Wikipedia are unfortunately limited to whenever I am unable to go flying, as per this week - cold :-( VC10K3 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're getting at with 410 Sqn. Will try and emulate their style, got quite a few images I'd like to upload as well.VC10K3 (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth a mention of the fact most of the trainees are fresh out of the college, and also that 85 and 57 do similar things, helps put it in context for those who aren't too familiar with how the armed services actually operate. Do think about signing up on the Military history project here, there are lots more editors who'll be able to help out and give advice. David Underdown (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How am I doing with the references? I've tidied up other areas and I've expanded on the trainees' lives before they come to us and added our Royal link, although it was before 16 Sqn was reformed, is it a valid point or should it be deleted? He was still taught by us, used our aircraft and was part of one of our courses - he didn't do the whole syllabus and left shortly after going solo. VC10K3 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of William seems fair enough to me, it was essentially the same unit. On references, much better, but generally it's felt to look better when they're put after punctuation marks. Really you're supposed to provide a bit of information about who the publisher is, when it was published and so on. The templates {{cite web}} for general web sites and {{cite news}} for newspaper websites, BBC and so on. David Underdown (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How're the references now? I think they're to the required standard, my next plan is to include photos from past and present.VC10K3 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:16 Sqn Saint.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:16 Sqn Saint.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} One of my students created this 3D image of our squadron badge on his laptop and gave it to me on CD to put on our squadron's wiki page, the links above are not clear as to what copyright tag is applicable nor how to add one. Hope you can assist, thanks VC10K3 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the logo itself (i.e. the image your student recreated in 3D) is copyrighted, Wikipedia:Logos#Copyright concerns allows a quick overview on how to proceed. You will then need to specify a reason why this can be used under fair use. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline outlines how to do that. If the logo was first created by someone you know and they are willing to do so, they can release it under the GFDL, a compatible creative commons license or release it into the public domain. See Wikipedia:Granting work into the public domain and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. If you still are unsure on how to proceed, asking at the media copyright questions page might allow a more qualified editor to address your question. Regards So Why 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty certain that the image is not copyrighted as it is a Squadron design that was first used in the 1960s although it is similar to the stickman of the Saints TV series and film - the reason why it was used as the Squadron's nickname is the 'Saints'. The logo has been painted on many of the squadron's aircraft over the years and is strongly associated with 16 Squadron. I am finding this process very difficult and find the links above to be of no value, I'm sure the information is in there but it is difficult to see what applies in this case. I have tried to change the licence info on the file but have no idea how to edit the tag that I have chosen. VC10K3 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:RAF Tutor Squadrons

Template:RAF Tutor Squadrons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MilborneOne (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]