User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 11

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

Category:Cruisers of the United States

After seeing your comment [1] regarding the redundancy between Category:Cruisers of the United States and Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy, you may be interested to note that Cruisers of the United States has been nominated for merger. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AWB

Please turn off the general page fixes when you are using AWB on talk pages. Wikifying the dates in people's signatures isn't very helpful. -N 18:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Aw darn it. I'm sorry about that. TomTheHand 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ok man, I've done that before too :) I shouldn't have worded it so harshly. Keep up the good work :) -N 18:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Contest link spammer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.98.70.247 Jonearles 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken

Hey! I noticed that you're editing articles with AWB, changing links to WWII to point directly at World War II. Per Wikipedia:Redirect, it doesn't help Wikipedia to do this, and your editing causes increased strain on the servers. Please look here for the specific guideline. It's fine to avoid redirects while you're doing other edits to the article, but editing just to avoid redirects wastes Wikipedia's bandwidth. Let me know if you have any questions. TomTheHand 01:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no questions. I just think that while it may not be the most helpful thing in the world, it does help increase the reputability (albeit marginally) of wikipedia by getting rid of the (Redirected from Some article) bar. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but the benefit of such edits is very small. See also Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects: "A recent benchmark showed that fixing a redirect is approximately ten thousand times more expensive for the server than following that redirect." You're making an edit every ten to fifteen seconds which puts strain on Wikipedia's servers for very little benefit. AWB's instructions specifically say not to do that right here: "Avoid making insignificant minor edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." I've looked at your editor review and I see that people have suggested that you make more mainspace edits, but this is not the way to puff up your edit count. TomTheHand 01:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to "puff up my edit count"; I am trying to help the encyclopædia. Also, concerning your point about the expense of fixing a redirect, devs have said "not to worry about the servers; if there is a problem, they will let you know." Ergo, the server strain of fixing redirects is not hurting Wikipedia (or hurting it in a very small, marginal, unnoticeable manner). ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 01:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we end this argument? *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an even better idea, Creampuff: how about you also obey Wikipedia's and AWB's rules on trivial edits and fixing redirects? In some cases you're expanding "WWII" out to "World War II", which I have no real issue with, because I think it reads better. However, edits like these definitely shouldn't be made, and in some cases, you even broke stuff. TomTheHand 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've provided two sources that specifically say not to do what you're doing, and pointed out the rules of use for the program you're editing with, which say don't make trivial edits. I'm not pulling this out of nowhere or providing my personal opinion. Please address real problems and only make edits to valid redirects if you're making other worthwhile changes at the same time. TomTheHand 01:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They have "let you know". Thus the guideline. Jouster  (whisper) 08:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry! I made a mistake, and I thank you for telling me to stop. But please don't bite my and others' butt about in the future, please. And by the way, I stopped making the edits after I saw you left that message to Animum. All I wanted to do was stop a conflict from starting on that previous message, so again, I'm sorry! *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change valid redirects

Per Wikipedia:Redirect, please don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken, as you've done here. It is considerably harder on Wikipedia's servers for you to fix redirects than for people to follow them. TomTheHand 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for letting me know about this. I was totally unaware. -Nv8200p talk 18:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Of course if you're making other revisions to the article, changing redirects so they point directly at the article is fine, but just changing a redirect costs more than it saves. TomTheHand 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lamprey and Macabi

I got a response from the NHC about the transfer of those two submarines to the Argentine Navy. Since that discussion had already been archived, I stuck a copy in the archived talk page.
—wwoods 20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's awesome, glad it's all been worked out! TomTheHand 20:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

List of states with nuclear weapons

List of states with nuclear weapons has been nominated for a featured list review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. KnightLago 14:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please be careful what you call vandalism. While some edits may be ill advised, calling it vandalism is generally not the best thing to do. An excerpt from WP:VANDAL states, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." It is my belief that this edit by husond was done in good faith and such this warning was innapropriate. Just please be careful what you classify as vandalism as it is also calling that editor a vandal. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether his edit was in good faith or not, removing legitimate comments from a talk page because one feels that the commenting editor was too new to have his opinion count is not acceptable. I used Template:Uw-tpv2 because I feel that it is not appropriate to use Template:Uw-tpv1 on an established editor. This template, which was developed by Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings, is the generally accepted response to removal or editing of talk page comments inappropriately. If you have a problem with removal of legitimate comments in good-faith being described as vandalism, feel free to let WP:UW know. TomTheHand 17:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not about templating this and templating that. I do not even use the Uw line of templates I think they are mostly pointless. Just drop him a line and let him know it was ill advised or that you had an issue with it. Do not call experienced editors vandals unless they really are vandalising. That is all I kindly ask. I will also take it up at the project talk page as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have started a thread here regarding the common practice of these actions. Please feel free to provide input. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In the future, when I see editors deleting legitimate comments from a discussion, I will continue to use user warning templates to tell them that the behavior is unacceptable, whether they are established users or not, because that is what the templates are for: They are the consensus-derived proper response to certain unacceptable behaviour. If you do establish consensus that such edits should not be called vandalism, and get the template changed to "Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments; this is a really bad thing to do, something you could eventually get blocked for, but because I know you're trying your best to be a good Wikipedian, I would never call them vandalism but will instead refer to them as 'misguided good-faith edits,'" I'll be more than happy to use the updated template. TomTheHand 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not some projects responsibility to make sure you properly notify somebody if there is an issue. It is your responsibility. Again, let me reitterate, calling something done in good faith is not vandalism. For your reference I have provided a link to WP:VANDAL where you can read the definition of vandalism. I kindly ask you again that you do not label good faith edits as vandalism. A quote from WP:VANDAL clearly states, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." The policy also states, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Again all I ask is that you do not label actions that are not vandalism according to this policy as vandalism. Thank you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've commented in the above discussion, stating my opinion that it may be a good idea to refer to disruption instead of vandalism in the warning. I, myself, will reiterate: if I ever again run into a user who removes legitimate comments from discussions, then leaves messages with the commenting users stating "your comments will be disregarded," in direct contradiction to the rules of WP:RFA and of Wikipedia in general, I will apply a series of warnings and, if necessary, a block. If you need the last word, by all means, take it now; I'll let my future actions speak for me. TomTheHand 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with warnings for such behavior. I agree it was probably ill advised and do not condoe such behavior. I think warnings are important and I regularly agive them to experienced editors when necessary. The problem is calling a good faith editor a vandal just opens the doors for major problems. TO reitterate, i did not have a problem with a wrning i have a problem when editors are innaproriatly labeled as vandals. I agree that in the warning, disruption is probably much beter than vandalism and have posted a discussion on the projects talk page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha, this warning is especially funny: it's insisting that the user assume good faith, which is itself an assumption of bad faith: I must have given Husond a warning because I thought he was acting in bad faith. That's not the case at all. I'm sure that he thought he was helping. I'm equally sure that his actions were wrong and violated RFA rules and Wikipedia policy, so I left a "don't delete talk page comments" warning template on Husond's talk page. I'm so, so very sorry that the template was not written to your liking. TomTheHand 18:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the lesson here is.... don't template the regulars, especially when you are assuming bad faith on Husonds part which was not his intention. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I did not assume bad faith on Husond's part. I reacted solely based on what he did: removed Smuuv's comments and then left a message on Smuuv's talk page telling him that his comments would be disregarded because he is new. This is unacceptable, and so I left a warning to let him know that. I'm sure he actually thought that new users should not comment on RFAs, and that the proper response to a poorly formatted comment is to delete it. TomTheHand 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You apparently dont understand the issue. So, let me try to explain it. Nobody cares that you warn people. Alot of people care that you call people vandals and use offensive disrputive templates tnat patronize and talk down to an editor who generally understands the rules. Again, we dont care that you warned him, we care that you used a template that is to be used for bad faith applications generally with new users. The quick solution to this problem is use a different template or dont use one at all. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You see, the problem is, the warning templates are made for new users to explain our policies, an admin does know our policies, so obviously had a particular reason for removing comments. You reverted him, fair enough. You could then have just personally typed a note to him to explain why you reverted him and reasons why his initial removal was wrong in your opinion - a boiler template certainly won't help matters, it just inflames situations. I'm not attempting to give you a lesson on anything, your an admin so you know how it all works, but Husond was not attempting to act disruptively, so didn't need to be told that he was so using a set template. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that Husond is an admin, but he violated both Wikipedia's talk page guidelines and RFA's rules. In order to assume good faith in that situation, one must assume that Husond didn't realize that what he did was wrong. If I had only seen Husond's removal, I might have reverted him and typed up a note asking about it. However, he explained why he deleted Smuuv's comments on Smuuv's talk page, and his first point (Smuuv's comments would be disregarded, so he should go read WP:RFA and come back when he's experienced) upset me a little, especially as the page he told Smuuv to go read specifically says that everyone, including new users and anons, is invited to participate. I considered the possibility that he was removing the comments because they a mess, but they really weren't so bad: one reply was in the wrong place. Compare Husond's cleanup (deletion) to mine (moving Smuuv's reply to the proper place). It seemed to me that Husond was unaware that what he did was not only wrong, but such a basic thing that we have a template for it, so away I went.

Frankly my intentions in templating Husond may have not been so different from your intentions in templating me: the template enhanced my point. In your case, you templated me because you know how a template feels and wanted to show me. I templated Husond because I also know how a template feels and thought it was important in making my point: this is one of those basic things that you're not supposed to do here. I certainly didn't template Husond with the intention of upsetting him or other administrators more than a personalized note would. I did it because I think that for very basic rules violations receiving a template should make one think, "Jeez, what a newbie mistake I just made." I wouldn't template someone on a contentious issue, but I thought this was pretty clear-cut.

If you go blank today's featured article and replace it with "fgdfds", and I catch it, I'm going to use a template. I'm not going to write you and say "Ryan, old buddy, old pal, with all due respect due to our common bond as Wikipedia administrators volunteering our valuable time in the pursuit of the equal distribution of human knowledge to all, I must disagree with your opinion that today's featured article is fgdfds and have reverted your edits pending attribution of your claim."

On the other hand, if you selectively cut out several paragraphs from an article on my watch list, I wouldn't dream of leaving a blanking vandalism template on your talk page. I might disagree with you about your deletions, but I'm going to write you a personalized note and ask you to please justify your edits. TomTheHand 18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. Warning

Hello. Please refrain from dropping template warnings on my talk page, as an administrator you should well know that those are not meant for established users. Discuss your disagreements in the next time please. I noticed that you made a comment regarding my comment to User:Smuuv. I do not agree with your entire reasoning and refer you to WP:RFA, where it reads "Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence". It's not the first time comments made by new users at RFAs are removed or moved to the talk page, especially when they denote clear misknowledge of the process. Still, I thank you for fixing this user's participation, I see that he now confirmed that he maintains his oppose and that his comment placed under the neutral section was an unfortunate mistake. Again, please discuss in next time. Regards, Húsönd 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just noticed the above discussion. Big fuss, no hard feelings. Regards, Húsönd 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote above says that comments from very new users, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud. Did you actually, honestly suspect fraud when one new user commented on a nowhere-near-contentious RFA? Moreover, the quote says that certain comments may be discounted, not removed from the discussion. RFA specifically says that new users are welcome to comment.

If comments by new users which are suspected to be fraudulent threaten to disrupt the RFA, certainly they should be removed or moved to the talk page. However, a non-disruptive comment by a single user, who did not appear to misunderstand the process at all, should never be removed no matter how new they are. The user didn't say "I vote no because Magnus is funny-looking," which might denote a misunderstanding of the process. He said that he opposes because of civility concerns, which is a legitimate reason to oppose an RFA. The proper action would have been to ask Smuuv to show when Magnus had been uncivil, not remove his comment. I don't see you removing other comments from the RFA that don't cite specific evidence for their reasoning. TomTheHand 23:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion reviews

Thanks for the tip! I am starting at the bottom and working up. After the first one I restored, I noticed that he also apparently didn't remove it from its article, which is a pet peeve of mine. I hope there are not too many more like that. --Spike Wilbury 14:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm... sure they're all like that. He made no effort whatsoever to do the job "right." He just deleted every single image with an expired DFU tag. He's done this sort of thing in the past as well. TomTheHand 14:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed 3000-3148 and taking a break. Out of those, I have restored 27. --Spike Wilbury 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Submarines 425–428

Hi. last month, you moved four submarines from the Tench-class to the Balao-class template. Do you remember what your source was for that? In the course of discussing it with Felix Stember, I checked various sources, with varying results. It looks like at least the last one, Ulua (SS-428) — and maybe all four — really were Tenches.
—wwoods 20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to make a change that might be contentious without discussion :-) Those four boats can't be Tenches. They were laid down in 1943 (SS-425–SS-426 on 23 August 1943 and SS-427–SS-428 on 13 November 1943). Tench (SS-417) was laid down 1 April 1944. My source was Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775-1990: Major Combatants by K. Jack Bauer. The submarines in question were built by Cramp. According to Register, Cramp never built any Tench class. If there's any more doubt, please let me know and we can discuss it further. TomTheHand 21:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it contentious, but I for one am confused. Why does everone (else) — including DANFS — think Ulua was a Tench? By the way, I notice a typo in navsource's page: "View the Ulna (SS-428) DANFS history entry...". :-)

If navsource's dates are right, the shipbuilders weren't exactly busting their tails to get those four finished. Ulua's construction began in November '43 and was suspended in August '45. Meanwhile Tench was laid down in April '44 and launched in July '44!

—wwoods 22:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Cramp is a much smaller yard, or something. Here are the "laid down" and "commissioned" dates of Cramp's first six boats, all Balaos:

Ship	Laid down	Commissioned	Elapsed time
USS Devilfish (SS-292)	31 March 1942	1 September 1944	~2 years 5 months
USS Dragonet (SS-293)	28 April 1942	6 March 1944	~2 years
USS Escolar (SS-294)	10 June 1942	2 June 1944	~2 years
USS Hackleback (SS-295)	15 August 1942	7 November 1944	~2 years 3 months
USS Lancetfish (SS-296)	30 September 1942	12 February 1945	~ 2 years 4 months
USS Ling (SS-297)	2 November 1942	8 June 1945	~2 years 7 months

So it just seems that Cramp was very slow for whatever reason. I think most people think Ulua is a Tench out of laziness: look at the hull number and make an assumption. She wasn't even completed, so why do extensive research? She was definitely laid down too early to have been laid down as a Tench: she predates the earliest Tench by four and a half months, and there are many boats laid down after Ulua that are undoubtedly Balaos. TomTheHand 02:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Submarine wikiproject

I've been kicking around the idea of a submarine history wikiproject to maintain the articles on historic subs (since there's that one "nut" who thinks EB is censoring the history of Arthur Leopold Busch. Thoughts? -N 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the task would be best accomplished by an existing WikiProject, like WP:SHIPS, or WP:MARITIME. If we created another ship-related WikiProject, we'd just be fracturing the community of users interested in ships even more. I'm sorry (just my opinion). TomTheHand 02:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. I will approach them about forming a task force. Thanks. -N 02:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ship characteristics - burthen

the new infobox introduces this term but then there is no appropriate link to decipher its meaning. Can you give me a pointer to its definition? GraemeLeggett 13:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I... don't actually know its definition ;-) It is an archaic measure of... maybe the mass of a ship? Maybe its cargo capacity? I think before "displacement" was able to be calculated, "tons burthen" was used, or something. Someone requested it because apparently there are many older ships for which "displacement" is not known but "tons burthen" is given. TomTheHand 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This link seems to actually be a contemporary definition, like maybe an excerpt from an old book: [2] It seems that it's a method of estimating capacity by making several measurements of the size of the ship. TomTheHand 20:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

jack vs. ensign?

I'm not too versed in naval terminology, and I'm wondering why you changed {{USN flag}} from using the naval jack to the naval ensign? I don't understand the differentiation between the two, nor the significance--I place infoboxes on US Navy ships, and noticed that it's now different. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tables has a table which displays both while stating: "Use one of the following jacks or ensigns: The jack is preferred if available." Again, I don't understand the significance or differences between the meanings and usage of the two and was hoping you could explain. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do my best to explain. Our article on Maritime flags deals pretty well with the difference between ensigns and jacks. Essentially, the jack is only flown while the ship is not underway. The ensign is more representative of what the ship would be flying most of the time. Much of the time, the ensign is identical to the nation's flag, so at once time WP:SHIPS thought it would be best to use the jack because it's more distinct. However, this discussion seems to indicate that consensus is to use ensigns unless there's a really good reason why not. The decision wasn't really implemented for a while, but after being reminded in this discussion I changed {{USN flag}}. TomTheHand 17:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)