User talk:Nslsmith

Eurofighter Discussion on Stealth

Did you read the comment on the Eurofighter talk page?

I believe I have made no controversial edit. The only person complaining that I know of is the sock-puppet.

Are you aware most all the complaints are by the same person, who is sock-puppetting. He wrote on this issue "This is not going away. I have lots of subnets and lots of usernames".

Please put my edits back. Please consult with the admin Akradecki, who has already been involved. Please don't give into the sock-puppet!

Kitplane, please sign your comments. I appreciate you involving administration, but I believe it is premature. First, comment on the talk page. I asked for objections and I received nothing but support. If you want information added back in, please state why. Make sure it is applicable to the topic at hand. Also, please sign your comments. Thanks - Nicholas SL Smith 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I forgot to sign my comments. I'll try and remember.

Stealth is important. It's so important that no western fighter designed in the last 30 years has not tried to reduce it's radar cross section, and no western fighter designed in the last 20 years has been non-stealth. The UK is the biggest buyer of the Typhoon, and their next fighter (JSF) is very stealth. The US is the bbiggest buyer of fighters in the world, and all their future fighters are stealthy.

The facts are correct and footnoted. No one except the sock-puppet has ever claimed otherwise.

It's a small section. It's only four paragraphs in a very lengthy article, on a very relevant subject.

sock puppets should not win. Compromise with unreasonable people (the sock-puppet) produces both a poorer article and more unreasonable behavior.

Kitplane01 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please try to stay calm - there is no winners or losers here - we just want the best, most balanced, and fair articles we can achieve. Your information may be correct, but it seems to be the consensus that it does not belong in this article. A description of what stealth is would fit better in a stealth aircraft page, or an article about stealth, see Stealth aircraft. The Eurofighter Typhoon is an outstanding aircraft, and may very well be more maneuverable than even the F-22 and F-35. The only reason that an extensive commentary on stealth was removed from the Eurofighter's page is that the Eurofighter is not a stealth aircraft. You are correct that aircraft designers have had radar cross section and observability in mind for many years. All modern aircraft designs have it in mind. The design consideration itself is not enough to label an aircraft as being "stealthy." The information you have uncovered made it appear as if the Typhoon is in some ways more stealth than other stealth aircraft. This contention was supported by a few quotes which were made informally during interviews. I believe you probably ought to add this information you have to Stealth aircraft instead, if it is appropriate. Nicholas SL Smith 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you saying "please stay calm"? I make my points, I respond to your points, and I do so politely. Everything I wrote is on topic and non-offensive.

Second, what consensus. It's a sock-puppet. There is one person who disagrees, and he even calls himself a sock-puppet. If you don't understand the term please say so. If you disagree please say so. If you have not looked at his threatening comment, after me repeatedly asking you to, then please say so. One sock-puppet is not a consensus. Meanwhile, there are actual people, who agree the material belongs. I believe the consensus is on my side, and that you are being fooled by a sock-puppet. Many times I have brought this up. Please respond directly to this point. Kitplane01 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please - you write with many exclamation points, bold terms, and extreme demands. If you believe that there has been some abuse of Wikipedia through sock puppetry, bring that to the attention of the people who monitor the talk page through posting it there. If you believe one user has multiple accounts, bring this to the attention of an administrator. This person ought to be blocked for abuses. Keep in mind that there exists no fight or conspiracy. Often, when an editor is determined to include content that most feel is inappropriate, it is seen as fanboyism. Your content may have a place, have you considered placing it in another article? Nicholas SL Smith 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In everything I've written, there is one exclamation point. I think no one could call that excessive.

Please answer the following question. Have you talked to the user Akradecki, or seen the edits of the Eurofighter page on 03:39, 9 October 2007? You wrote "If you believe one user has multiple accounts, bring this to the attention of an administrator". I *am* bringing it to your attention. Do you think there is a sock-puppet or not. Please answer that question directly.

Your text, as it appears, is very pushy. Remember that I have no duty to you; I volunteer my time to Wikipedia as we all do. Your exclamation points are not your biggest problem, it appears that you are angry and discontent with me and everyone else. If you want cooperation, this is not a good way to go about it (a word of advice for future interactions with Wikipedians.)

On point, edits or even users from the same IP don't necessarily mean that it is all one person. Many people in a household, dorm, or college may be routed through a single IP. Regardless, I agree with them. I believe that the paragraph(s) in question as your want them are misleading. Although no one sentence you wrote appeared to be a fabrication, together they create a notion that the Eurofighter is as or more stealthy than the F-22 and F-35. Also, each of the paragraphs was a conglomeration of off-hand statements from interviews or conversations. That style is perfect for a magazine, but is isn't appropriate in an encyclopedic article. It is best to use verifiable information over verifiable opinions of others when it comes to articles such as these, which non-philosophic or social topics. Nicholas SL Smith 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm reasonable to seem frustrated. I have several times asked you the same questions, and several times you don't answer them. They were "Have you talked to the user Akradecki, or seen the edits of the Eurofighter page on 03:39, 9 October 2007?. Do you think there is a sock-puppet?" You wrote "Remember that I have no duty to you;" That's true, but when you use admin power you do have a duty to act with care, and looking at the evidence would have been appropriate care.

I suppose frustration can happen, but try not to let it show. It'll hurt your appearance, and slow the resolution of these issues. I must point out that I am not an Administrator, as Akradecki is. The reason I asked you is because I thought that you had already involved an admin (which I don't believe is necessary, at least to involve an Admin in Admin capacity, yet as everyone is being pretty civil.)

Lets move this conversation back to the talk page -- I don't believe we are the victims of sock puppets right now -- and I agree with the way this issue is going. Thanks for working with us on this. Nicholas SL Smith 05:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you were an admin and that colored my writings to you. I'm still curious though. do you believe there ever was a sock-puppet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no problem! I'll take a look - there is a lot of emotion around these topics, and unfortunately a lot of folks who don't use traceable accounts. I'm looking into it, but precisely which users or IPs do you believe are sock puppets? (just to save a little time) Nicholas SL Smith 01:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

GETRAG discussion

Hi. I thought you should know that there is currently a discussion at WP:CARS about how GETRAG/Getrag should be written. You're name came up since you renamed several "Getrag" pages to "GETRAG". The way I see it, what you have done is perfectly consistent with the guidelines WP:MOSTM and MOS:CAPS, but not everyone agrees. I think your opinion about this could be most helpful to the discussion.~ Dusk Knight 04:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I submitted my rationale and a few examples of other capitalized trademarks. Nicholas SL Smith (User talk:Nslsmith) 03:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note, by manually moving all Getrag-related articles from Category:Getrag transmissions to Category:GETRAG transmissions, depopulating the former, you have violated the terms of Wikipedia's GFDL which require that all contributors be given attribution for their work. The effect is the same as your previous copy/paste moves, which cause a similar GFDL violation, and will require to be undone. Please wait until the end of the move request before being so "bold", as you are increasing the amount of cleanup required, regardless of its outcome. --DeLarge (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern; however, Past the copy/past changes already addressed, no further changes have been made which violate GFDL guidelines. Absolutely no contributor history is lost by changing categorical markers within articles. These categories are populated via the existence of markers within individual articles, and pages such as Category:Getrag transmissions or Category:GETRAG transmissions contain no contributor history. I modified individual articles for consistency only, which, regardless of the outcome of the current debate on capitalization, will only serve to unify and clarify the topic at hand or aide in a more simple transition if the community decides to move these articles over. Please see [Category: Getrag transmissions edit history]. Don't worry, as future moves of categorical listings require only the modification of article text. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you better clue yourself up on the requirements of the GFDL. You might also wish to clue yourself up on votestacking before engaging in edits such as this and this (or those relating to Orange (colour)). --DeLarge 16:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)