User talk:Dan100/Archive/2

Stealth edit[edit]

Did you move the discussion of the importance and use of stealth aircraft today to a different article in your overhaul or did you just delete it? If you don't think it belongs there then I'll make a "Stealth Aircraft" article, move it into there and put it in the "See also" list. I don't like to see relevant, useful information deleted from an article. Nvinen 12:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) P.S. I like what you did to the article overall.

I was trying to move the article away from being about aircraft to a more general piece on, well, stealth technology. I'm glad you like I what I did :). Yeah I did delete the discussion, as it looked to me to be speculation/original research, and wasn't referenced. It didn't really fit with what I know of aerial warfare either, but I could be wrong. BTW there already is stealth aircraft; not an unreasonable article. Dan100 20:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the paragraph I wrote at the bottom was based on my own research into topics such as the air defence system of countries like China. We should probably refer to the "stealth aircraft" article from the "stealth" article and maybe I'll write something similar in that one. Basically, it's possible to build an air defence system around high value targets that covers so much altitude and range with such effective missile systems that the only way I can see for conventional strikes to hit targets within that zone would be for stealth aircraft to degrade the defence system first (short of a land assault or massive naval bombardment perhaps). I'm talking about systems like the SA-10 and SA-12 which China manufactures and upgrades. Even then, systems like the SA-15 are able to shoot down bombs and missiles, so the question of how to actually take out the SAM systems becomes a difficult one - i.e. even if the stealth aircraft can fly to the target area and release its munitions, traditional munitions aren't stealthy, so they can be picked up on radar and shot down. I'm sure it's the topic of lots of DARPA research and more than one classified technologies - maybe stealth bombs? That's speculation but I think it's relevant to the stealth topic, in order to point out that stealth has more uses than what we've typically seen in the past (i.e. taking out targets without bothering to take out the air defence systems around them first). In other words, if it came to a major war, how would stealth be used?

So granted, there is no specific reference, and I don't really have "credentials" to back up my statements, but it's based on a lot of research and I think it's valid enough to at least mention. Nvinen 16:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added some info to the Stealth aircraft article as mentioned above. Nvinen 02:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AAM[edit]

I cleaned up air-to-air missile and added some more info. I think it needs a bit more work, but it's getting there. Mostly just a little more info on some of the less common cases. Some notes:

An unguided air-to-air munition is typically referred to as an "air-to-air rocket", so I removed the "usually".
Style guided says to use double-quotes, not single quotes where possible.
It's => it is, its => posessive

You're welcome to help me editing/writing articles about SAM system if you like. At least, that's my primary focus. I've written most of SA-3 through SA-15 (those that weren't already there anyway, which is basically the MANPADS), and added stubs for the rest. Some of them can certainly use some cleaning up. Not sure if you're interested in that sort of thing. I'm fascinated by how crazy the Russians were during the cold war. No wonder none of them had enough food to eat with all the money they were spending building massive rockets and such... Nvinen 13:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

paniq on VfD[edit]

There is an interesting discussion over on VfD for the bio-article for German demoscene musician and artist paniq. I was hoping you could enter a comment or vote after reading through and reviewing the article. -R

Re: Wikipedia:Importance[edit]

I'm pretty happy allowing people to write about "unimportant" things, as long as those articles are factual, and they don't unduly clutter navigation to "more important" topics. -- Beland 02:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair dos. I was hoping it could be a way to end those silly "non-notable" "yes it is" debates on VfD Dan100 09:33, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The VfD inferno[edit]

This week has been a little strange on VfD to say the least. There is yet 2 more articles which target the demoscene culture at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kewlers and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Northstar (demogroup) which you may want to review. -R

music markup[edit]

we are having a great discussion about bringing music to our wiki. Wouldn't you mind joining in? --Alexandre Van de Sande 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion[edit]

As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

Thank you for your time. --GRider\^talk

Thanks for bringing these to my attention. Dan100 21:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Kinetic energy penetrators[edit]

On the depleted uranium page, I wrote that DU is used in munitions to improve external ballistics and terminal ballistics, but you reworded it to read that it is used to give the projectile more kinetic energy. As I understand it, the KEP uses a sabot...not the best way to increase projectile kinetic energy, if the only limitations are barrel diameter and muzzle velocity! Would it be alright if I changed the article back, or should we discuss this some more? --Respectfully, Polyparadigm 07:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If you make a penetrator of a more dense substance, for the same size, it will have roughly the same kinetic energy when it leaves the barrel; it will be travelling slower but be heavier. The difference is how much energy is bled off in flight and the profile of the trajectory (fast projectiles are more desirable because the fly flatter; slow projectiles are more desirable because they don't lose as much energy to friction). That's what you refer to as "external ballistics". The other difference is how well the material works as a penetrator - "terminal ballistics". Uranium makes an excellent material. It's easy to work with (shape), strong and self-sharpening. I think perhaps Dan100 is trying to simplify the language for the layman. Perhaps you need a compromise. Something that explains that DU is used because it makes for better KE penetration, and then add this is because of the ballistics mentioned, which people can safely ignore if they don't want the details. Nvinen 07:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having done some research, I think we should instead emphasise exactly why DU is used in certain armour penetrators instead of, say, tungsten - the self-sharpening and pyrophoric properties. I am wrong about the KE, of course - the KE a certain amount of propellant imparts to a projectile is fixed - but I don't think the better ballistics of a flechette is the primary reason why DU is used to construct them. BTW, a found a good picture of a sabot being discarded. I'm not up to speed on image-use rights, but if anyone knows better than me and can utilise it... Dan100 19:56, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

That's a great photo. The problem is that FAS.org doesn't provide information on where they got the photos from or any copyright info. They claim their work is copyrighted in the footers, but I know for a fact that some of their photos come from the military, which is mostly public domain work (I've found the same photos on .mil sites with no copyright notice, and uploaded them to wikipedia as public domain, with the relevant info showing that this is the case). I'm almost certain that photo comes from the military or a defence contractor. If it's the former, it's PD, if it's the latter, it's likely to be copyrighted. I'm not really sure about the concept of fair use. We don't have that in my country :(

Here is some more useful info on DU vs. Tungsten, the material that was used before DU: [1] . It doesn't mention the pyrophoric properties but they are certainly a consideration. As you said, so is self-sharpening. I also read that, because it's a by-product of nuclear weapons development, the US had a huge stockpile/output of it, which also makes it cheaper than most other metals for them, seeing as I don't know what they'd do with it otherwise. So that makes four good reasons I think: self-sharpening, pyrophoric, cheap to acquire and cheap to manufacture (as stated at that last link).

I've read that one of the major reasons that gunners prefer to use KE rounds rather than HEAT rounds against tanks is not just that they penetrate certain kinds of armour better, but also the external ballistics of them. For one thing, they reach the target faster. That means less time for the target to shoot back at you and less chance of missing due to their movement. That's a big advantage. The flatter trajectory also makes aiming more accurate. The disadvantage is that you're more likely to hit the front armour from an angle which it is designed to resist, rather than perpendicular to the surface or if you're really lucky hit the top of the vehicle with a high trajectory. However, KE rounds are powerful enough that that isn't too much of a worry. So yes, ballistics is not the main reason they are used, but it's a big bonus and shouldn't be discounted IMO. Nvinen 05:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm not denying that flechettes are favoured over HEAT rounds etc because they fly better. However a tungsten flechette probably flys almost as well as a DU one. I think in the DU article, we should emphasise that DU is preferred over tungsten because it self-sharpens and its dust burns (tungsten just mushrooms iirc). Discussion of the ballistics should definitely be on the flechette and KE-penetrator pages, but I don't think it should be in the DU article as it might present the idea that flechettes have to be DU, when they don't. Dan100 17:45, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've emailed FAS.org's webmaster asking for copyright info. Wish me luck. Also, I'd be entirely willing to move overly-technical parts of the materials comparison to a section in kinetic energy penetrator, with a link in DU for interested parties, as long as what's left behind isn't simplified beyond the point of truth once I'm done.

Yep, best of luck, I wish we had more really good descriptive photos like that in the public domain for wikipedia :) Nvinen 20:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your feedback and for chosing to discuss matters rather than just edit war. Very refreshing! I've removed my incorrect reasoning about kinetic energy and restored the paragraph about the better ballistics of DU projectiles over other materials. I've also altered the section to more clearly highlight DU's other advantages over, say, tungsten, including easier of production. Dan100 19:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I have no particular grievances with what you said, I just saw the discussion and thought I'd chip in. I'm no expert but I read a lot of documentation about this sort of thing as I'm interested in military history. It sounds like the article is getting better, which is the whole point of editing wikipedia. Nvinen 20:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

Dan, thank you, I really appreciate that. Best, SlimVirgin 19:36, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Weight training[edit]

Why not just work towards a compromise instead of reverting. You are not helping anything and are jsut wasting people's time. Reverts don't help much in cases like this, so just don't bother. You are the one acting against consensus and not compromising at all unlike the other editor. So the burden of providing sources to back up your claims falls on you. If you revert again I will consider it vandalism and block you. - Taxman 00:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Weight training 2[edit]

Thank you for your explanation. Yes, I eventually realised that something like this must have happened. I think there have been a few misunderstandings along the way. On my side too. But I think that we have achieved some reasonable compromises along the way. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 21:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adminship nomination[edit]

Hi Dan, I decided to accept Michael's offer of nomination, so here it is, if you're still willing to support it. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SlimVirgin ;-) Best, SlimVirgin 05:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Weight Training 3[edit]

In case Dan's not watching George's archived talk page, I'll copy this here:

N.B. "why did you 'rv' before proceeding to let most of my edits stand?!" is exactly what he did to me, too. He'll have to tell us what it means, but I think everyone can guess. Blair P. Houghton 17:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Hey Dan, I want to thank you for supporting me in my adminship nomination, both before it with your moral support, and then with your vote and very kind comment. I really do appreciate it. Your comment left me quite touched, in fact. ;-) If I can ever help out in any way, I hope you'll let me know. Best, SlimVirgin 03:54, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion[edit]

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

Wikinews logo[edit]

Hi, the Wikinews logo has been updated. Could you update the thumbnail used in the Sister projects box? Dan100 13:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dan. I made a new thumbnail at Image:Wikinews-logo2-35px.png. It came to 1874 bytes. The auto-generated MediaWiki thumbnail of Image:Wikinews-logo-textless.png is only 10 bytes bigger. So I'm going to change Template:WikipediaSister to just use the big textless logo. But it still needs to be updated ... I'll do that in a couple hours if you don't get to it first.

By the way, did you intend to upload the new logo locally to Image:Wikinews-logo2.png, instead of at the Commons? I'd like to delete that image, if you'd tag it {{delete}}. The fewer copies of the logo to keep in sync the better! dbenbenn | talk 18:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I became confused and uploaded the new logo to the wrong place, sorry about that. I've marked it CSD. BTW I don't have a textless version (nor the mean to make one), could you do that? Dan100 19:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

VFD[edit]

Seeing as how you weighed in on another controversial VFD (List of people described as neoconservatives, I was wondering if you could weigh in on this one as well Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of people described as Stalinists. Thank you. TDC 00:03, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

My user page[edit]

Sorry, Dan, I only just saw your comment. Thanks for the compliment on my user page. Yes, I had some vandalism so I protected it, but I'd actually forgotten I'd done it, so I've unprotected it now. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I find it sad that you persist in going around making spiteful comments about those of us who are trying to stop not-antisocial-users from getting fed up and walking away from the project. Furthermore, I also think it would be wise to take heed of the old adage about not throwing stones in glass houses. You do good work - but how dare you continually suggest that I and others are doing something else than writing an encyclopedia - when I continue to add a heck of a lot more articles and information to this encyclopedia every week than you do. Ambi 13:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You folk live in a different world. BTW what gives with the competitiveness? Do you think that because you make more edits you are more special? Dan100 14:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

No, not at all. I do, however, think it is ridiculous that you accuse me of "playing Perry Mason instead of building an encyclopedia", and making repeated comments about how you think those involved in the arbitration processes need to "get back to writing articles", when you really aren't doing that much of that yourself. And yes, I take offence at that. You're not inferior; you're just a hypocrite. Ambi 01:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, so are you saying that you do not think I am contributing anything to Wikipedia's articles? I just want to get that clear. Dan100 07:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

You can take my words out of context as much as you like, but that doesn't make it true. I've never stated that you aren't contributing anything - I've specifically stated that I respect what you do. What I take issue with is that you belittle my contributions through your snide and hypocritical comments. Ambi 15:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I assume you view my comments as a personal attack. OK, even if that's not what I meant them to be, if that's how you feel, I am sorry. I will take care to present any fustrations I feel surrounding arbitration in a less ambigous manner in the future, if I feel the need to express such opinoins again. So again, I am sorry that I said what I did, and if you were upset by them.

However, that does not excuse you calling me a 'jerk', nor your attempts to belittle my work and bully me. We should not make personal attacks, against anyone, under any circumstances. So I am simply going to express my extreme disappointment in you for breaking the very rules you were elected by the community to uphold. Fin. Dan100 17:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to read The Cunctator's comments to the list. I'm not usually very fond of him, but I think he was quite insightful in this instance. Ambi 01:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More personal insult and personal attack. This seems, by your own standards, Ambi, to be bullying. Paul Beardsell 02:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)