User talk:MGXD11
September 2024
[edit]
Hello, MGXD11, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as 186.102.7.176 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Sukhoi Su-9, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ZLEA T\C 21:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- ??? Isnt Constructive call a vehicle by its original name? Think it of, NATO Official Politicians and Military doesnt check information in Wikipedia for his counterparts, they have that clear, so its better to wikipedia to stay neutral geopolitically because despite of being an american founded site, not only american people visit the site but almost all the globe that want a further reading, wikipedias in other languages dont give enough information because lack of editers in their country and the English Wiki is the easiest way to get information and you know it, so please reconsider my edit and not just delete stuff by no reason. MGXD11 (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The articles still predominantly use the Soviet/Russian designations of the aircraft. You are removing reliably sourced content without discussion, and it is disruptive. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. If you believe NATO should stop assigning their own reporting names to Russian and Chinese aircraft, you'll have to ask NATO directly. - ZLEA T\C 22:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok bro, lets get into an agreedment, lets put the nato designations at the bottom of the second paragraph of the article so for example, “MiG-17 is a Soviet Fighter produced by Mikoyan Gurevich and ta ta ta” thats the first paragraph, then is the specifications with the photo and speed, armament, etc. And then below that, that is the second paragraph, at the end we put the nato designation, shall we? PD: Thank You for being polite and calm when you answered my text. MGXD11 (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to change the standard for how we cover aircraft reporting names, feel free to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Unless and until consensus (as defined by WP:AIRNATO) changes, the reporting names will stay where they are. - ZLEA T\C 00:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok bro, lets get into an agreedment, lets put the nato designations at the bottom of the second paragraph of the article so for example, “MiG-17 is a Soviet Fighter produced by Mikoyan Gurevich and ta ta ta” thats the first paragraph, then is the specifications with the photo and speed, armament, etc. And then below that, that is the second paragraph, at the end we put the nato designation, shall we? PD: Thank You for being polite and calm when you answered my text. MGXD11 (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please see WP:AIRNATO about how we handle Allied/NATO reporting names on English Wikipedia. - ZLEA T\C 22:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The articles still predominantly use the Soviet/Russian designations of the aircraft. You are removing reliably sourced content without discussion, and it is disruptive. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. If you believe NATO should stop assigning their own reporting names to Russian and Chinese aircraft, you'll have to ask NATO directly. - ZLEA T\C 22:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi MGXD11! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Real Speed of XB-70 Valkyrie is not +Mach 3, this information is wrong and wikipedia itself says it, 3,300 Kmph to Mach is Mach 2.7, other example is SR-71, his max speed is Mach 2,86 that again, the article itself says it, 3,540 Kmph to mach is Mach 2,86, and if you try to change the Kmph and mph settings of the article to match with the false mach registrations, you would be spreading misinformation, that is what wikipedia tries to evade, this kmph and mph data that is now is there for a reason so please consider this. MGXD11 (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- NASA disagrees with you. If you have a reliable source that shows NASA is wrong, please supply it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the speed of sound decreases with altitude. The confusion is probably arising because you are calculating Mach at sea level, while sources are probably calculating at a higher altitude. - ZLEA T\C 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are right, but then we would mind to make that specification in the article, the atmosphere at 27.000m is a pretty specific and un-common test altitude for an Aircraft (The Official by the FAI is at 10.000m) of course the test of the Valkyrie is that way because the purpose of the Aircraft, but i think Mach 3 shouldnt be the Max registered Official Speed of the Aircraft, the article needs to clear that information and i noticed other thing, Every Wikipedia Plane Article Should have the Max Speed in his Highest alttitude (Theorical-Practical-Capable Max Speed) like TPMS and the Max Speed in an average scenario (10.000m) In-Combat-Normal-Alttitude-Max-Speed. (ICNAMS) Lets Make a Campaign on making this Calculations in other similar cases as SR-71! MGXD11 (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Let's not get into original research, thanks. Stick with the reliable sources, not what we think they should actually say. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are right, but then we would mind to make that specification in the article, the atmosphere at 27.000m is a pretty specific and un-common test altitude for an Aircraft (The Official by the FAI is at 10.000m) of course the test of the Valkyrie is that way because the purpose of the Aircraft, but i think Mach 3 shouldnt be the Max registered Official Speed of the Aircraft, the article needs to clear that information and i noticed other thing, Every Wikipedia Plane Article Should have the Max Speed in his Highest alttitude (Theorical-Practical-Capable Max Speed) like TPMS and the Max Speed in an average scenario (10.000m) In-Combat-Normal-Alttitude-Max-Speed. (ICNAMS) Lets Make a Campaign on making this Calculations in other similar cases as SR-71! MGXD11 (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the speed of sound decreases with altitude. The confusion is probably arising because you are calculating Mach at sea level, while sources are probably calculating at a higher altitude. - ZLEA T\C 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- NASA disagrees with you. If you have a reliable source that shows NASA is wrong, please supply it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)