Nem1yan

June 2010

Hello there, I'm curious about what you just did today. What was this and this edit all about? Mind sharing with me? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I simply took the empty weight and added the weight of ordinance and fuel. The previous thrust to weight ratio had no basis, so I calculated it myself. You can double check me if you feel I was wrong though. Nem1yan (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article it clearly suggests that AESA will be introduced by 2012, sooner than majority of other Aircrafts in the development phase, so I think it should move up the list,even FGFA deal has been finalized for USD 30 Billion! Thanks. Tutu1234 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wings

		Wikiwings
		For your efforts to improve aviation articles and for answering questions on talk pages. Keep up the good work. -fnlayson (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Marking as Patrolled

Hi, It seems that you have been spending some time patrolling the New Page section. I and the other members of WP:RCP really appreciate your efforts, but as you review articles, make sure you are marking them as patrolled. If you need info on how to do this, leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks! Bped1985 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Marking pages as patrolled takes the yellow highlight off the page in the New Page section, which tells the other patrollers that it has been checked for potential problems by other users. To do this, first find a new un-patrolled page in the New Pages section. Un-patrolled pages are highlighted in yellow. On the bottom right-hand corner of that un-patrolled page, there will be a small link that should say "Mark page as patrolled", click on that, and viola! It's marked as patrolled. Let me know if you have any issues. Cheers! Bped1985 (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to fifth generation fighter jets

Sorry about not explaining the reasons behind removing a section from the fifth generation fighter jets page, I do not do much editing on Wikipedia so I'm not very experienced. Thanks for the information to help me in future edits, the reasoning behind my removal of that section of the page was that the sentence was not neutral and was referenced from a biased source and as such did not describe the topic adequately from a balanced point of view. I probably needed to just rewrite the sentence and locate more varied references from different points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackknight28 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Rafale / Times of India deletion

Hello Nem1yan, I am bringing this for discussion here since you acted without bringing this up in talk, and there is little enough discussion going on that this will hopefully suffice to resolve. You removed a sentence sourcing the Times of India regarding the Rafale comparisons under the excuse that the "source is an interview of a French pilot". This is wrong. The source is the Times of India, and what I quoted is from the journalist, not the pilot. The Times of India is a serious newspaper. You are right about the F-series comparisons, though; there were head-to-heads, but this source does not refer to them. I will bring in a source later. For now I have reworded the sentence, and I maintain that the quote is appropriate.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You have now come up with three different and partly inconsistent reasons for deleting one statement that is sourced to a serious journalist and newspaper. Besides Wikipedia:3R, consider that your own opinions on the pilot and the journalist are now known to be clearly biased relative to their respective qualifications.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I can produce several more reasons that source is biased and the statement you made from it does not match. Either way unless you change something that statement isnt going to be added. And for another reason: That information doesnt even belong in that section. A journalist's opinion on the aircraft has nothing to do with exports. Your statement is a shallow attempt to say that the Rafale better than other aircraft. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in this section. Why do you think the Rafale went to India and India put it up against the SU-30 on this trip? I won't get into your insinuations, but I will simply say that I am trying to add relevant and reasonably sourced material, and what has been lacking so far has been consistency in your reasons for reversing let alone apparent intent to engage the wording.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about exports then France is attempting to sell Rafales to India where they would supplement the Su-30's in the IAF, not compete against them. If are you are trying to add relevant material to the article then you should avoid using words like "best" and "greatest". If you want to say that the Rafale outperforms other fighters then you are going to need a source that actually shows how, and even still you would face criticism. I can give several reasons (with citation) on how a Su-30 has some maneuvering advantages over the Rafale, the only thing you can give me is an opinion from a journalist. -Nem1yan (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Again: I did not say "best", the pilot did not say "best" in this quote. A Times of India journalist with recognized science and military expertise did. I wonder if I should consider it progress that you no longer specifically insult the journalist, but rather the fourth estate in general.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement you added to the article said "best", and the journalist did not prove himself qualified to make that statement. If you wish to state the Rafale is best at dogfighting you are going to need a more reliable and conclusive source that provides evidence to match its' claims. -Nem1yan (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that what I see proof of is that you didn't want this sourced quote in the article, and that consistency in reasons has been the casualty.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You're correct in that I didnt want a biased statement that implied one aircrafts' superiority over another without providing evidence to be added to the article. You're addition to the article said the Rafale was going up against the Su-30, now that you realize that was not the case I'd hope you'd stop trying to prove your point but I guess not. To Recap:

"In February 2011 the Rafale flew to India for demonstrations that included going up against the Su-30"

1. Rafales did not fly to India to go against Su-30 (factual error)
2. Rafales did not enter into competition with Su-30's after arriving in India (factual error)

"deemed the Rafale "best at dogfight", in the sense of modern air-to-air combat."

1. The journalist's comparison did not include all modern dogfighters
2. Journalist did not provide any factually evidence for his conclusion
3. Journalist only interviewed one pilot about one aircraft even though he compared several (bias)
4. Interviewed pilot implied that the Rafale was the lighter aircraft (factual aircraft, F-16 is smaller along with Saab Gripen)
5. Pilot implied that the lighter aircraft was more maneuverable (disputable; aerodynamics account for maneuverability, not size)
6. Statement did not address fighter exports directly, and without proper introduction it would be located in the wrong section of article
7. No supplementary evidence to support claim was ever provided by editor.

Fix those and I'll leave it alone. -Nem1yan (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. This is putting a lot of words self-righteously in my mouth, the pilot's, the journalist's... Reading you, I see that "up against" can indeed be ambiguous in that it can be understood to mean only head-to-head competition, though it also stands for comparing and it logical that there is a side-by-side element in the visit. That second interpretation is consistent with the facts, and this may explain why Fnlayson kept the wording. Knowing that you have shown no interest in improving wording, this will make for an interest next step.

Speaking of words misunderstood, you might want to read about comparative advantage sometime. And, if you go back to my first edit, mind that "between" is not the same thing as "against", like plain "against" is not the same as "up against". Are you denying that the Rafale and the F-16 have been matched head-to-head, for instance (we agree that this was not sourced in ToI)?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The wording was changed, so I really dont understand why you are still arguing, either accept the current revision or get a better source. It should be rather simple for you since you've been arguing it the entire time. If the Rafale is truly the best dogfighter then find a source showing the result of those engagements, along with other engagements where the Rafale bested other aircraft outright. (You may need several sources in order to factor out pilot training for each aircraft however.) After that you will have an argument. Can we also make note of how you have yet to provide a source where-in a Rafale outperformed an Su-30, which is what I asked you for in the beginning. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point this is not about "best" - and has not been for a while - as far as I am concerned, though I will say that it keeps worrying me that you do not see the difference between "best dogfighter" and "best at dogfighting". Do you understand that if I and the source were as confused as you make it out, "best" could not be construed to refer to a two-way comparison, where "better" would be used - hence, past my first edit in which I have already agreed I tried to cram too much information (I had other sources going), you have been pulling for changes that make the wording more confusing and more inaccurate? Easy with the finger stuck on the undo button, but hardly a way to advance the article on the export topic. Now, did you read the current wording of the article ([[1]]), and consider my note on the Rafale talk page (22:11, 30 March 2011) that should make it clear that it is you alone who have been obsessing about "best" since then? And you want the wording frozen?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, if you are fine with the current version of the page then just accept it or find a better source for your claim stating that the Rafale was best. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not either-or, unless you are stuck on the kill button. Why do you want a wording used that is inaccurate according to your own view - and here I am referring strictly to the wording of the current version? Aside from that, please stop saying that I created ("your") a "claim stating that the Rafale was best" - between the weasel-y generalization this implies and ignoring the source, that falls some way short of good faith editorship, beside being a waste.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Shenyang J-15

It state that by developing the J15 was a violation of intellectual property agreement, I wonder what agreement? Cuz I havn't seen any, it's not like military equiptment have a international patent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.120.84 (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And since you deleted my addon based on lack of reliable sources, yet I don't see any reliable sources among all the sources provided, it's was either a forum debate or speculations from Kanwa which are known to be wrong many times, the fact that the Russians are displeased yet never filed law suite against Shenyang speaks for itself and are a far more reliable source than Kanwa's Andrei Pinkov's personal opinion on the so called violation of intellectual property agreement. And there have been several report from Russia that stated that Russia was willing to sell the Su33, price and modern firecontrol/AESA radar was the main concern since the Su33 production line have been shut down long ago, and no improvement plan for the Su33 exist, and China obviously is not gonna buy the old Su33 as it is severely outdated even compared to any of the Chinese Su27/J11 upgrade version. So the claim on the article of the Shenyang J15 which claim that China's modification of J11B into a carrier based fighter which violate international intellectual property agreement was the reason of the collapse of the Su33 purchase negoiation are simply erronous, truth rather are that the PLAN was unsatisfied with the high price tag demanded by the Russian to reopen the Su33 production line and the fact that the current Su33 version are getting outdated and proper upgrade within a timeframe not possible, thus when Shenyang successfully produced J15 prototype, the negotiation ended with lack of anymore intrest from the Chinese side.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.120.84 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC) 

There are three sources on the page that support the given statement, all of which are reliable reports, not forum debate as you're saying. And like I stated before you must have a source in order to make certain statements. Either provide a source or drop the issue, and please make further comments on the article's talk page since this doesnt involve me directly. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There are only one main link of source to claim what was stated on the article about the supposed violation, http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100604/159306694.html, this link have several false claims that have no fact to back it up, it claimed that J-15 carrier-based fighter will not be able to compete with Russia's Su-33 fighter on global markets because it is inferior to the Russian aircraft, this despite that the Su33 aren't even been produced anymore in Russia let alone compete in international market and claim that the J15 are inferior and unlikely to solve technical problems, this based on what? And again on intellectual agreement, there is not agreement that exist that stated that China can't independently produce and improve the Su27 licence produced in China, nowhere was it stated that it was required to fit Russian avionics and radar, only that radar and avionics and engines wasn't licensed to China, so I am exactly arguing that this link should not be used as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.120.84 (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with the source then present a new one, that is reliable, that contradicts it. Then you will have an argument. As of now you are merely arguing your opinion, which in this situation isnt going to get you anywhere. -Nem1yan (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WS-15

The information I posted came from the Chinese translation of a Russian article here: http://mil.huanqiu.com/Observation/2011-06/1728647.html (Sorry, I don't read Russian, so I was unable to find the original.), which seems quite plausible to me. As WS-15 remains a secret project, information like this is as good as they get.

The Chinese appear to have acquired both the TV and non-TV versions of the RS-79-300 engine and are developing many variants. I personally believe that the "WS-15X" referred to in the article as going into J-20 will have Thrust-Vectoring, but the article itself did not clarify this issue.

Duduong (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

iiss 2010

Since the copy I've received is in a pdf format it's no problem for me to mail it to you, if you want to doublecheck the data. Just give me an email address to send it to. its some 6-7 mb in size. --Totoro1234 (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Nem1yan,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)