User talk:Alexey Topol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

James M. Gavin et al[edit]

Have you read Wikipedia:Consensus at all? A number of people have questioned the validity and necessity of the additions you've made to the page, and you've done nothing but brush them off. Once again, the onus is on you as the editor who added the content to provide suitable rationale for their inclusion. Adding one reference to show that the M113 could be air dropped did nothing to address any of the other issues raised. Why do you persist in adding it when you can't demonstrate it to be factual or applicable to a biographic article? What are you trying to prove? The talk page is not a web forum, it is a medium meant to resolve issues just like this - discuss and resolve the issue there. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I already gave you the source for my information, and all the information I added is factually correct. And yes, I do think it does have a place in Gavin's bio article, since the M113 is his very own project designed to incorporate his personal lessons learnt (the need to equip paratroopers with armored all-terrain and amphibious mobility on the ground) and was tailored for his personal vision of future warfare. That the US Army never fully realized the potential of the M113 does not make General Gavin's merit in designing the requirements for the M113 less viable. And the M113 is doubtlessly Gavin's most important and longest-lasting contribution to the military worlwide. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
And your source explicitly stated that the M113 was air dropped in Operation Just Cause? - Because it was not cited. And it it explicitly stated that James M. Gavin had a hand in pushing specifically for the M113? And you addressed the concerns that it was 'an entirely new form of warfare' when it wasn't? See, none of that was addressed, either in the article, or on the talk page. Also, please refrain from calling my reversals 'vandalism', they are not. Saying as much is just an attempt to manipulate the situation and make yourself the victim. -Jonathon A H (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the M551 Sheridan should also be included in his bio, though it was nowhere as successful as the M113, it was a revolutionary concept, too. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
And again, what did it have to do with Gavin? Furthermore I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. There are three people, including myself, that have raised concerns, which you haven't addressed - and you continue to act as though your edits are the only ones that count. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I was wrong on the air-dropping, and I already admitted it days ago in the discussion section: Though technically possible (the M113 is officially airdrop-certified by both the US Army and Air Force), it has not been done in this particular operation. But yes, General Gavin can be considered the father of the M113, since his requirements directly resulted in the development of the T113 and T117, the only difference between which was the material, the former made of aluminum, the latter of steel. It's all in the article. And indeed, I do feel that your constant revertings constitute an act of vandalism. For whatever reason, you seem hellbent on denying the legacy of General Gavin and his connection to the M113. You are even stalking me to other pages, like the M113 page. I don't know what might be your personal issue with me, but this is getting pathological. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yet you keep putting the Operation Just Cause claim in - This is yet another example of making unreferenced claims, and only backing out when you get called out on them. The proper way to do things would be to have the reference, then add the information, don't you think? And please, oh please provide a reference for your claim that it was his personal requirements that led to the development of the M113... see, this is another example of you making a claim, and not having anything (other than the rantings of Mike Sparks) to back it up. Saying 'it's all in the article' is pointing to what you wrote. You're self citing yourself. Also, please read: Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule - you've crossed the line at 4, for the record. And just how am I 'destroying the legacy of Gen. Gavin'? I'm trying to maintain the integrity of the article (by, gaspshockhorror, expecting references and encyclopedic writing) and uphold Wikipedia's standards (you'll note I've pointed out a number of policy articles to you - all of which you haven't read, it would seem). - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not put it back in intentionally, I'm only responding to your wholesale deletions of what I wrote ! Why don't you delete the Operation Just Cause part instead of deleting EVERYTHING ? I will go ahead now and do it, I didn't know it was still in there. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You made no effort to edit it after it was called out on the talk page, instead you continued to debate there. I deleted the entire paragraph because the entire paragraph was being called into question. It's not just Operation Just Cause that was in question, it was (and still is) Gavin's involvement (or lack thereof) in developing the M113. You've done nothing to address those concerns. At all. You got called on the 'entirely new form of warfare' bit, too, but you haven't addressed that, either. You made some vaguely dismissive comments, but you didn't edit the content of your additions to take the concerns into consideration, did you? - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I cannot edit something which is not there. I had to reinsert my text each time since you unconstructively deleted it wholesale instead of deleting the parts which you deemed unsourced or whatever offence you took with them. And now I guess you did it again. How in the world am I supposed to edit it then ? You dismiss my additions wholesale without ever providing anything to back up your entirely subjective notion that I was somehow wrong on everything. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure you can. You wrote that entire paragraph in the first place. You don't need to undo the revert unless you're trying to prove a point. I reverted because the entire addition was called into question on the talk page. Not just the one little bit you cited. The entire thing, top to bottom, so I removed the entire thing, top to bottom. Instead of working with people on the talk page toward something that everyone agreed on, you just kept putting it back. Why don't you try working with them? Why don't you try talking it out instead of insisting that you're right, when the majority (so far) don't agree? What makes you the sole arbiter of truth when it comes to James M. Gavin or the M113? I haven't reverted all of your changes, I've even agreed with some of them (like removing the unsourced statement from 2008, or that mention of legitimate criticism should be left in the Stryker article), it doesn't have to be 'me vs them', but you have to be willing to work with people. But journalistic writing, claiming information to be fact without reference, and agenda driven edits do the articles, and Wikipedia as a whole a disservice. - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
So I will revert your deletion as to exclude the Operation Just Cause part, OK ? But how am I supposed "to work with you" on the article if you dismiss the notion of having ANY mention of Gavin's decisive role in the creation of the M113 altogether ? -- Alexey Topol (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at the talk page there and tell me that you've really tried. You've replied to the concerns there, but that's not the same as answering them. You simply brushed them aside. You made no attempt to convince anyone of the validity of your argument, just an attempt to point out that they were wrong, and that you were sure you were right. You've been asked to show how Gavin had a direct hand in developing, or pushing the development of the M113, and you simply made a dismissive comment without actually explaining how. Likewise for your claim that he invented 'an entirely new form of warfare' when someone else pointed out that clearly, it was not new, nor was it something he invented. You've made no attempt to re-write, or to moderate those claims using the concerns or issues raised. I don't have anything against General Gavin, I'm not trying to tarnish his reputation, I'm trying to let it speak for itself. Making grandiose statements which are, at best, questionable detract from his actual accomplishments. Can you honestly tell me that you're approaching this article from a neutral position? - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's work together on the wording, if you don't like it (or just change it by yourself). Certainly General Gavin was not the very first to "invent" air-mechanized warfare, but he was a rather early proponent of it and contrary to many preceeding attempts at designing an air.mechanized combat doctrine and matching vehicles, Gavin's visions were not futuristic, but easily implemented with existing technology, or such developped at the time. The M551, the M113, even the Humvee (unarmored version) are air-droppable with dedicated air-drop platforms and existing airplanes, like the C-130. No fancy flying tanks - Gavin's vision was making the most out of simple material. That is what was revolutionary about his approach - the can-do philosophy of it, the actual initiative to make already possible air-mech warfare part of the US Army's actual doctrine and thus employ it in real combat situations. To provide the US Army with a fitting APC he wrote the requirement for the M113, and he also was involved to some extent with the M551 (which share common parts and concepts with the M113). -- Alexey Topol (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the M551 Sheridan should also be included in his bio, though it was nowhere as successful as the M113, it was a revolutionary concept, too. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
And again, what did it have to do with Gavin? Furthermore I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. There are three people, including myself, that have raised concerns, which you haven't addressed - and you continue to act as though your edits are the only ones that count. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
What counts is factually accurate information. I can get a number of fake accounts, too, and claim that there were so many people jumping to my rescue when I was short of arguments and facts - but that's just not my style. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
And this is factually accurate how? Again, you've provided nothing. And are you accusing me of sock puppetry? You do realize that Wikipedia does have a policy on that (Wikipedia:Sock puppetry). It certainly sounds that way. By all means, I invite you to open an investigation if only so I can prove you wrong. I am, quite frankly, insulted, and I assure you that I have nothing to do with any other account on Wikipedia, registered or unregistered. Furthermore, in what way am I the one short on facts? You're the one acting alone and in need of verification. I've tried to deal with this in a civil manner, I've tried to negotiate and compromise on talk pages, I've always tried to act only when it was within Wikipedia's guidelines to do so. I don't think I can say the same for you. - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Your "civility" consists in deleting time and again the paragraphs I wrote, with sources, by the way, on various pages. This includes the Stryker page, too. See your talk page, I found two independent references for the ACAV configuration as an invention made by the South Vietnamese. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
One source. You've only ever added one source to the Gavin article, and it was on whether or not M113s could be air dropped - which had nothing to do with the issues with the paragraph. And I deleted -duplicate- references from the Stryker article. The WP article had already been quoted. And see my talk page on your 'independent' references. And please, please, please read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Could you read those, please? Because if you thought those were 'good references', you clearly haven't read them yet. - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - Rklawton (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not me who is waging an edit war here, but that other user, talk, who constantly deletes my additions to various pages. And yes, I am talking and discussing all the time with him on both article and user discussion pages to find a peaceful solution, but he just keeps on reverting my edits. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Scheduled decommissioning of Enterprise in 2013[edit]

While I agree that $662 million dollars is a lot to refurb our oldest carrier, but bare in mind that is costs almost $1 million a day to run a deployed carrier. Multiply that times 183 days at sea, that's almost $366 million a year and almost $1.9 billion for three years. In the DOD's mind, the $13 million cost overrun still fiscally worth it over three years. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you calculate that cost ? The sailors have to be paid and fed either way, no ? Anyway, the timing of the refuribishment just seems to make no sense. But this is a common practice thruout the western world - upgrade miltary installations, ships and vehicles to the latest standards just prior to scrapping them. Happened to the F-14 Tomcat, too - it still got unique LANTIRN and other capabilities which the F/A-18 Hornet lacks to this very day. Happened thruout Germany over the course of the last couple of years, where they spent lots of money on the renovation of barracks which were closed down just a few years later. OK, in the latter case you might achieve a higher price for the real estate, but the carrier and the F14s are not up for sale ... -- Alexey Topol (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Well originally, F-14 parts were up for sale, however due to growing fear that the parts were being bought to be sold to Iran, the governmet indefinately suspended the sale. But getting back to the "upgrades before scrapping," let's put it another way. If you had a family member serving in the military, would you want them to serve in a building that is infested with rodents and had mold? Now you could make the arguement of putting them in another building, but where would they go if other buildings are full? You would still have to keep them in their current building until a suitable one is found or built right? As for the ships, it takes between 3 to 5 years to build a brand new aircraft career. Until that new career is completed, they still need the current one to complete ongoing foward projection missions. So, you spend 18 months to two years to refit your current one, for use for another two to three years until the new one is ready to replace it. Neovu79 (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

I recommend you read WP:Vandalism, especially "What is not vandalism". Edits you don't like are not vandalism, they're simply edits you don't like. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two kinds of people on wikipedia: The ones who sacrifice their spare time to create quality content, and the ones who destroy it. You know who you are, and it's people like you who keep wikipedia from growing and improving. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

China Railways CRH380A[edit]

If you actually read the article you are discussing, you will see that the CRH380 is derived from the CRH2, which is itself derived from the Japanese E2 Series Shinkansen.
And as you didn't seem to get the hint the first time, please note that article talk pages are meant to be used for discussing the article, not for general chit-chat about the article's subject. Please take the time to read through Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and keep future discussions focused on how to improve the article. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That discussion was meant to improve the article, since information about the development was lacking. And you obviously confuse the CRH380/CRH380B with the CRH380A, which are entirely different trains. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

List of AMD Graphics Processing Units Discussion[edit]

Try to keep the discussion on that page relevant to the article. The page isn't a forum to answer your questions. The reference design, shown here, has 1 mini DP, 2 DVI, and 1 HDMI. I haven't been able to find any details about the internal configuration of the hardware, but I know with the 5xxx series the AIB manufacturer could choose to alter the reference configuration and add more VGA ports. You can look for a card with a certain configuration at retail, or just use two DVI-VGA connectors. Paranoidmage (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would, but there is no wikipedia article about the card design. This limitation to the GPU itself is rather impractical in my opinion. Anyway, thanks for your answer. All the currently available HD6xxx cards I've checked out have - besides mini-DP and HDMI - only one DVI-I port (i.e. with the analogue VGA signal), the second DVI-port being a DVI-D, i.e. without the analogue output. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sodomy[edit]

Noachides are not forbidden to engage in sodomy. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. All homosexual acts are considered an abomination by the Torah. In Leviticus 18:22, it is written: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination." And in Leviticus 20:13, it is written: "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- Alexey Topol (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Alexy, the Noachide commandments are contained in Jewish law, which says that the prohibition is anal sex between men. Period. For Jews, there are additional prohibitions, but not for non-Jews. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -

Please note that the source you brought on Seven Laws of Noah for the inclusion of "sodomy" as one of the prohibitions does not include the word "sodomy" at all. If you read the lede of the article on sodomy, you'll see that sodomy can include any number of different acts, depending on context. As such, it's inappropriate to use the term here, since the prohibitions are well defined. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

(r.e. M113 armored personnel carrier‎) Please do not ever refer to good faith edits as vandalism. Doing so is considered uncivil. The content you have re-added is primary sourced, please provide critical commentary to support the assertion that this was an online campaign by one individual, otherwise it will have to be removed again as original research. --Errant (chat!) 10:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Noahides[edit]

Hi there, I have seen your request on the cases awaiting mediation and have adopted this. Please let me know when you are ready to beginEugene-elgato (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your offer. I am just afraid that the other part (that user who thinks he owns the page) will not be very cooperative. In short, he/she is very opinionated and always gives his/her POV and sometimes original sources - often in Hebrew, which I and presumably you and most other users - cannot even understand. I on the other hand cited that all-English website about Noahides, noahides.org. Maybe you and other users could go there and read what they say. I would suggest that website is a more authoritative source of information than that certain user (excuse me, I forgot his/her name), being run by Jewish rabbis. If there are any Jewish rabbis (orthodox ones) working on wikipedia, you may also contact them for their opinion on the issue - I am just a Noahide (believer), not an actual expert on scripture (Torah). -- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, yes i am going to have a more detailed read of that. But i need to understand better why one side say Noahide interpretation is rooted in Talmudic sources and the other side say it is entirely separate?Eugene-elgato (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Seven Laws of Noah[edit]

Greetings, Alexey! And a happy, leaky new year to you. }:-}

On the Seven Laws of Noah Seven_Laws_of_Noah Wiki page, I asked Lisa how she would feel if I ask both you and her about me simply writing to a Jewish Synagogue near me and asking the Rabbi about the issue, then I could present the email question and response to both of you.

It looks like the terms and wording in dispute are relatively minor, and looking at web sites I find that there are web pages which support both sides of the issue. A third party (that would be me, who happens to be a non-Jewish atheist) could ask a Rabbi, get an answer, and the Wiki page be updated according to what the Rabbi says, and a copy of the email containing references to the Synagogue could even be added to the Wiki page.

If that sounds okay, would you update my talk page? I wanted to help because I saw the dispute and was curious myself what the definitive answer might be from an elder Rabbi. Damotclese (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I could write to a few rabbis I know as well, but then again Lisa would dismiss their point of view as "non-authoritative", "biassed", "bigotted", "unsourced", "unsubstantiated", or whatever ... you see, I'm tired of edit wars. And the relevant information is all there on the Noahides.org (spelling ?) page I linked to, anyway. But good luck with your inquiry. To me, it is no minor difference, by the way, whether male homosexual relations are categorically forbidden, no matter what, or whether the verdict is against "anal penetration" only, as Lisa claims. And as everybody knows, the former is the generally accepted rule in Judaism. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania[edit]

Flag map of Romania.svg
Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Electrified railroads in USA[edit]

@ Aleksej, ich glaube fast, man bekommt Zahlen über die Gesamtlänge der elektrifizierten Bahnstrecken für jeden Staat der Welt – außer USA :-) Ulamm (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comparison of AMD graphics processing units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CRT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)