User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Archives
January 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – June 2007 June 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – November 2007 November 2007 – December 2007 December 2007 – January 2007

300 Edits

Thanks for catching that bit. We appreciateyou helping out on the article. As you can see, it is a bit of a roller coaster. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Welcome, and cheers!Arcayne 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

300

I noticed that some one replaced "Persians" with "certain groups". I noticed that the citation does not contain anything about Greek people. The only mention is this: " homoerotic Spartan fashion" Which can not be considered hostility, as any society and any ethnic groups have some homoerotic people. Thanks. Sangak ^Talk 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Hornplease (talk · contribs), he made that edit because some of the sources cited also said that the disabled were portrayed negatively. Specifically, I think people were offended at the depiction of Ephialtes of Trachis as a hunchback. There is no historical source stating that he suffered from any disability, and yet he was depicted as such, arguably making a "disabled = evil" connection. TomTheHand 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. then that's fine. Sangak ^Talk 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out against the spammer. WikiNew 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. For future reference, the place where you want to report that sort of thing is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, not Wikipedia:Abuse reports, which is for long-term abuse. TomTheHand 20:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Message

Hi Tom, saw your message. I know that about the final warning, but I figured it was a pretty extreme vandalism, replacing the article's main picture with a big picture of porn. --AW 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that's a serious problem, but I'm unwilling to block an IP address without a pattern of vandalism. TomTheHand 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

mfd on wp:rogue

Hi, I put the mfd tag on this page, but the generated link to the deletion discussion page turned out to be a link to an already existing page. I would like to continue the nomination but was unsure how to proceed at this point. Thanks for your note. 70.113.215.93 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my right to complain, even when you didn't agree with me. —Kymacpherson 12:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

From Honda Pilot (talk · contribs)

Thanks, do you work for wikipedia? HP

I appreciate your AGFing in regard to my name. If ther is too concern about it, discuss it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honda Pilot (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Well lets see, if we add something to the name would it be okay? Honda Pilot

If we trying to elimiate "Honda" from the name, we have user hondasaregood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honda Pilot (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Re:Dulbecco's law

Going over the reason for deletion of this article, I realize thst I did not give a source for "Dulbecco's law", which is well known in the sciences and the subject of the odd paper or two, often referred to as "the Mathiew principal". I will resubmit this, properly referenced.Pproctor 21:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of "Dulbecco's law" used in a lecture on science fraud at the University of Copenhagen.Pproctor 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A mention in passing does little to convince me of the notability of this phrase. TomTheHand 20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, TomTheHand. Just for you info, I replied your comment here. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just read your comment, but I'd like to take a little time to think about the issue, as I'm on the fence about it now. Thanks for explaining. TomTheHand 18:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

SS United States

Hello.. I see you created {{Infobox Ship}} and must assume that you are fairly knowledgeable about ships. The infobox at SS United States is hard coded and not standardized with other ship articles.. unfortunately I'm not positive what information goes into what parameters as some of the names (i.e. does "height" = "draught"?) do not match up. Maybe you can replace the infobox? Thanks! -- drumguy8800 C T 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thin header bars

Hi. The header bar for "General Characteristics" in {{Infobox Ship Characteristics}} seems rather cramped. I'd like to try changing it to the 30px height of {{Infobox Ship}}, but — looking at the code — I don't know what to change, other than to replace {{WPMILHIST Infobox style|header_bar}} with something else. Maybe you can just add style="height: 30px;" to that? Or would having two style=".."s cause a conflict?
—wwoods 21:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I somehow managed to miss this message. I don't really know how to fix this, but I'll look into it. TomTheHand 19:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Got it. TomTheHand 19:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal only sock?

After checking edits and giving an indefinite block to User talk:Haylow4life as a vandal only account, I noted similar vandalism from User talk:Lskdfgn;g – you've given a 48 hour block. Think a review of one or other of the blocks is in order? .. dave souza, talk 13:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, sock puppetry seems obvious here. Honestly, Lskdfgn;g is pretty much a violation of user name policy anyway. I'll go ahead and indefinitely block that account. TomTheHand 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, seems sensible .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cizeta-Moroder V16T engine

Hiya - actually, I didn't say/write that the engine is NOT "just two V8s bolted together". I just added that Cizeta denies this, in quotation marks (in the actual article refering to the car itself, in any case). The source for this is http://www.cizetav16t.com/FAQ.html, which has the question "Isn't it just to [sic!] 8 cylinder motors bolted together?", to which the reply is "Not at all! This is an all original automobile in every aspect. The engine is all original, single block, with a 16 cylinder firing order." The engine is however said to have some similarities to Ferrari engines (with Zampolli being an engineer and having worked as a Ferrari dealer and all that), but is - according to Zampolli and Cizeta Automobilia, respectively - not two engines coupled together. Now, as I do not own one of those cars and wouldn't be able to sort my way through the engine in any case (nor would I, for that matter, mess with it anyways), I can't say whether or not this is actually true, which is why I have worded my entries carefully, pointing out that at least the manufacturer denies that it's "just two V8s coupled together". As I said - the source for that is the manufacturer's FAQ. Also, in common language "two V8s coupled" (as it more or less says in the article) summons up an image of engineers taking two V8s, partly dismantling and then joining them, which is apparently not the case. So "originally engineered, although based on the architecture of two V8s" or something along those lines would probably be a better way of expressing that. --afromme 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying. It's important to balance describing the engine accurately in an engineering sense with not making it look like some hacked-together job. It is engineered from the ground up as two coupled V8s. Cizeta does not deny this, and their specs imply it, though they don't state it outright on their website. They deny that it's "just two 8 cylinder motors bolted together." That's true, it isn't just some hack job putting together two separate engines.

I'll make edits to the two articles; please let me know if the edits satisfy you or if you'd like to go further with it. TomTheHand 19:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

USS

Thanks for the compliment. Yes, people really read the edit summaries.--J Clear 12:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I really think the template is very helpful, and I'm going to try to use it more often. It's much easier on both the editor who uses it and future editors who have to read the page. TomTheHand 22:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rouge Admin

Hi there man, I'd just like to apologise for the time you wasted replying to my comments on the Rouge Admin page. I was Editing Under the Influence (EUI) and actually thought I was dreaming at the time. I hope you'll accept my sincerest apologies for my NeoLibertarian conspiracist rant. Thank you for your understanding! Whiskey in the Jar 22:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Messy categories

I'm sure you haven't forgotten all the effort we (and particularly, you) went to a while back working on the ship categories as part of WP:Ships. It would appear that Special:Contributions/Benea is making a lot of good faith edits reverting which I feel might be working against the spirit of what me managed to achieve. Do you think perhaps we should give them a heads up and direct them to the guidelines that you drew up for categorisation? Emoscopes ^Talk 06:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I had noticed him working yesterday, adding ships to Category:Royal Navy battleships, but I hadn't wanted to say anything because my history with the navy categories is complicated. I thought they were a bad idea, but when I tried to have them merged into the country cats there was strong opposition from both within and outside WP:SHIPS. Instead I added navy cats to our categorization guidelines, and started putting ships into them. After a few months, and hundreds of articles categorized, I realized that I still don't like the navy cats, and if people want them they can put ships into them themselves. If you think we should try to get him to stop, I'm all for it.

Today, I see he's making a number of other changes. As far as those go:

1. He's adding era cats to class cats. That's definitely bad..
2. He's adding country and navy cats to ship articles, where their class article already carries the country/navy cat. We used to put these cats on there, but we don't any more, and we should ask him to please stop that as well.
3. He's adding battleship cats to ships that are disputably battleships. If we want to address this, we need to come up with some guidelines as to what should be categorized as battleships and what shouldn't. I tried to address this some time ago but nothing really came out of it.

I'll leave him a message and talk to him about the obvious stuff, but could you chime in if necessary, and/or give me your input here on the ambiguous issues? TomTheHand 13:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Messy Catagories

Hey ho. First to introduce myself. Fairly new account, but not so new to Wikipedia, and as you've guessed a fair interest in Naval history. I see that there are some fairly interesting guidelines in place, of which I was unaware, so I'm sorry if I've majorly gone against them.

Some I understand, for example the catagories where ships of a class may fall in between a particular era, such as Victorian battleships. I was uneasy about this in the first place, particularly with the World War I description seeming to include ships that were operational in 1900, but played no part in the War, and I'd suggest having a look at that and more strictly defining the era and what ships could count. I'm happy to go with 'That's definitely bad..' without too much embarrasment.

On the 'country and navy cats to ship articles, where their class article already carries the country/navy cat', I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. Maybe not hugely neccesary but it does provide a large and pretty accessible section of the links to Navy Battleships, that the 'List of Royal Navy Battleships' does not. I agree that having two catagories such as 'Royal Navy battleships' and 'Battleships of the United Kingdom' means one is redundant, since now they pretty much carry identical information, but I'd query whether that listing the ships as well as the catagories is a bad thing.

Agree that numerous ships are indeed 'disputably battleships'. I was surprised to see many ships of the line listed under battleships, even as far back as the Mary Rose on the list page. It could be renamed 'Capital ships' I suppose but even then I think that's wide of the mark still.

If there are brilliant reasons why things are why they are, then I'll be happy to bow to them. I think the first and last points I'm happy to go along with, but the second one I'd question whether the changes haven't done some good, or are at least pretty harmless, particularly as that page is now pretty much complete now. I wouldn't oppose deleting say 'Royal Navy Battleships' but again, the style doesn't seem to be a problem.

Essentially I just found several projects that seemed to be in a state of incompletion and passed the time by filling them in. Sorry to be a bother.

Pip pip thenBenea 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, sorry about phrasing it as "definitely bad"; I was just trying to distinguish between points that are matters of dispute and points that definitely contradict the way WP:SHIPS would like to do things.

As far as the second point goes, we originally did exactly as you've done, for the reasons you state. However, when we started to deal with types of ships that are extremely numerous, like destroyers, things started to get pretty messy. Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy is still an example of this, but the worst cases (like the destroyer cats) have been cleaned up already. We discussed it here. Sorry, the talk is a little lengthy. What we decided was that country cats shouldn't go on individual ships if their class is already part of a country cat, and we should improve list articles like List of battleships of the Royal Navy so that they're an adequate replacement.

If you'd like to revisit the topic, please post about it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships so that more people can participate in the discussion.

Incidentally, if you'd like another categorization project, both Category:Submarine classes and Category:Frigate classes are in pretty bad states. I'm working my way through submarines, but I'm bogged down in the Balao class right now, going through each page and fixing inaccuracies as well as adding categories. Unfortunately these smaller ships are much more frustrating to categorize, and it looks like your interest is primarily in Royal Navy battleships of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Please do pop by WP:SHIPS and put in your two cents on the battleship vs. ship of the line issue. It's something we never got around to resolving, and if we can agree on a dividing line there'll be plenty of categorization work to do to support it. TomTheHand 17:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite all right, I was rather taken with how much consternation I seemed to have caused.

I can see why you've done it, navies tend to have the bad habit of building lots of little ships, and I suspect that a page full of them will be more of a hindrance than a help. However with battleships, not only are there not as many of them (and if we sort out the ship-of-line/battleship debate, there may well be fewer still), but they tend to have the wider appeal. I was approaching it more as a tool and guide for those who aren't so initiated I suppose. Many people wouldn't know what particular class the ship they wanted to find belonged to, and it makes general browsing more difficult (though I always suspected that was my own secret geekiness at work), to do it merely by class. The alphabetical order also aids finding the information, whereas the list page's chronological approach made it hard to find a specific ship. I see how to do it for every form of ship would be prohibitive, but perhaps an exception could be made in this case, especially since it is largely all there now. Anyway, essays are calling. ta ta for now. Benea 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that List of battleships of the Royal Navy is difficult to browse, but the decision we came to is to make better lists (see List of submarines of the United States Navy, which has hull number and alphabetical order side-by-side in columns) instead of using categories. TomTheHand 18:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just the ticket. Rearranging the List of battleships of the Royal Navy to follow that style with a link on each ship's article would solve pretty much all of the issues I've outlined. Sound good? Benea 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. TomTheHand 19:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:World War I naval ships of Austria-Hungary

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:World War I naval ships of Austria-Hungary, by 84.66.17.239, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:World War I naval ships of Austria-Hungary has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:World War I naval ships of Austria-Hungary, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:World War I naval ships of Austria-Hungary itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)