User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 4

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

Re: Game Guide

Hey Nick,

This AFD is over, but I still wanted to get in touch with you about what we talked about. I had said:

What do you believe "game guide" means? I'd be interested in hearing your personal definition, based off of the following policy:

Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.

I was still hoping to hear from you about what you think "game guide" means in the context of WP:NOT. Hope to hear from you. Thanks! TomTheHand 19:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To me a game guide is any content that is primarily useful in the successful execution of a video game. Simply because it does not specifically give advice or describe in words how to do something does not mean it is not a game guide. So maps that graphically show the layout or terrain of a game is only useful within the game context. Specific details of games that do not permiate outside of the game space may also be game guide material. It should be clear however that video games themselves are generally notable (if popular or unique or historical etc.) It is appropriate to describe the game sufficiently so that the reader may understand what sort of game it is and its basic gameplay (The sort of things that anyone who has played the game for an hour would know). Perhaps some of the basic storyline too given the cinematic nature of many modern games. Perhaps a good test is if someone who has never played the game before but is curious about it might want to know about it before deciding to purchase it (but not an advert). An article may be an exceptional example of a game guide if the context is foreign to the unaquainted reader but near and dear to the hard-core fan. Individual components of games can reach significance outside of the game and warant a dedicated article e.g. Mario but if they are not notable outside the context of the game they either belong in the main article on the game (which is space limited) or do not meet notablility criteria and do not belong here.--Nick Y. 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly a good definition. May I ask in what way you felt that the article Surfing (Counter-Strike) qualified as a game guide? I understand if you no longer recall the details of the article and cannot answer. The article seemed to me to describe a mod for Counter-Strike; it described the concept behind it, but did not give advice, and listed, but did not describe, popular levels. TomTheHand 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Category Bellerophon class battleship

Hi. You seem to be the category King (compliment meant). Could you amend the category box which appears at the bottom in the members of the Bellerophon class dreadnoughts? It currently reads "Suceeded by St Vincent class" which is obviously wrong. The box is too big as well. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to change it. Cheers, -Harlsbottom 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the typo and shrank the box by about 20%. I think it helps a little bit. I'll explain how I did it. First, I went to a page that uses the template, specifically Bellerophon class battleship. I edited the page so I could see the source, and I scrolled down to the bottom so I could find the template's name. I looked for text in double curly brackets {{}}, and found "{{Bellerophon_class_battleship}}". Then I navigated to Template:Bellerophon_class_battleship and edited that page to fix the typo and shrink the size. TomTheHand 13:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help before, very useful, especially as I'm working on another wiki which needs beefing up! And may I suggest that if you haven't already done so, [1] at the WP:MILHIST Coordinators election (even if not for me ;))! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlsbottom (talk • contribs)

 

Just curious, but I noticed you are replacing certain spaces in ship article infoboxes with [[ |& nbsp ;]]. Is this a special feature or new project that no one told me about?  :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's something I started doing since Bobblewik came by the project and told us about his monobook tool, here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Making unit formats consistent. I'm using modified versions of some of the expressions from his tool in AWB. What it boils down to is formatting units according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), specifically this section. It states:

Put a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg" not "25kg". Preferably, use   for the space (25 kg) so that it does not break lines.

If you'd like to learn more about nbsp's, check out the article on the topic. I use them in certain other places around ship articles where it seems helpful to keep the phrase from breaking over lines. For example, when a task force is specified, like "TF 38", I insert an nbsp. TomTheHand 13:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

Note: Esaborio was a sockpuppet of Copperchair, who was blocked for 366 days on March 12, 2006 for edits which violated his ArbCom ruling.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. TomTheHand 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you know that rule, then why do you ignore it? Esaborio 18:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You may not understand the three revert rule. Please read the policy. TomTheHand 18:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

forbear

In antitank rifle you reverted back to:

"The weapon is the conceptual forbear to modern anti-tank weapons..."

What does the word mean in the context of the sentence? According to Merriam, the word may mean to refrain or abstain.

The sentence you reverted back to makes no sense (to me). Please help me understand. Brainhell 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Look further down the page; forbear (also spelled forebear; maybe it should be changed to that) means "ancestor." You changed it to "forbearer," which means "someone who refrains or desists." TomTheHand 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an amazing day for me, because you are right about the use of a common word, and I am wrong. Wow! It's almost always the other way. Thank you for teaching me the meaning of 'forbear' or 'forebear' -- a word so ludicrous and laughable that know that I understand it I will never use it. Brainhell 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Note: Esaborio was a sockpuppet of Copperchair, who was blocked for 366 days on March 12, 2006 for edits which violated his ArbCom ruling.

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. TomTheHand 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I have been unfairly blocked, thus taking from me any right to defnd myself against, I'll have to respong here:

According to TomTheHand, I have at least two different computers at home, since when a user is blocked, his or her IP address is also blocked, and he claims I am Copperchair, whose account was blocked. Note that Copperchair used to edit at the same hours of the day as I do, which is logic, as we are both from the same country (Costa Rica), and the hours we have both use are night time, when one has free time. I took part of the User page of Copperchair for my own, since when I looked what User's pages linked to Universidad de Costa Rica, where apparently we both graduated from, I found his/her. After revising Copperchair's contributions and mine, one can see that while we both share the same interests (Star Wars and the War on Terrorism), Copperchair used to edit almost exclusively and daily a large list of Star Wars articles, and just one about the War on Terrorism. On the contrary, I edit a lot of war articles (not just from the War on Terrorism), and have only edited the articles of the Star Wars movies (less than six), and sporadically. He/she also openly said, and showed, with his/her edits, he/she had a grudge against the newest versions of the Star Wars films, which I don't. How can a user that said “Personally, I HATE the 2004 DVD version of the Star Wars Trilogy” suddenly forget about waging war against it? Note that he/she used the word “hate”, in bold, no less, which proves how much he/she disliked it. On the other hand, however, I must admit I have used the IP 201.199.77.202, and am willing to face the consequences for doing so. Since this case is based on an absurd exaggeration from TomTheHand, intent on blocking a user just for don't sharing his opinion about an article or two related to war, I must ask it to be disesteemed. Esaborio 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First, when a user is blocked, his or her IP address is only temporarily blocked; after 24 hours, the block on the IP is lifted. The IP is temporarily blocked again each time the banned user tries to edit, but it is never permanently blocked because most people have IPs that are at least somewhat dynamic. Second, I'm not sure how you can claim that you were "unfairly blocked" and then, in the same post, admit to using the IP 201.199.77.202; that means that you've reverted World War III six times in the past 24 hours, which is a perfectly fair reason for blocking someone under the three revert rule. TomTheHand 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't know, since I have only been blocked once, and only for 24 hours. And I said I was unfairly blocked because the other user did'nt get blocked, even though he also reverted more than three times in 24 hours the same article. Esaborio 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about World War III, you're mistaken. No other user reverted more than three times in 24 hours. TomTheHand 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR WARNING

Note: Spahbod was a sockpuppet of Darkred, who was blocked indefinitely on May 7, 2006 for threatening Wikipedia users with physical violence by e-mail.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Spahbod ☼ 15:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, I will not revert the article again today. TomTheHand 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to disappoint you but there actually is a version which someone, most likely yourself had changed the flag just like you did, so you have violated the 3RR, i highly recommend you selfvert before i report you and get you blocked. Thank you, --Spahbod ☼ 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; I apologize. Please discuss the flag area issue on Talk:Iran-Iraq War; I am interested to hear how you can justify your solution. TomTheHand 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a moment! My first edit does not count as a revert. Only the following edits are reverts:

09:13, August 3, 2006

09:53, August 3, 2006

10:55, August 3, 2006

My initial edit is here:

16:27, August 2, 2006

It was not a revert, but rather a change of the Iranian flag to a compromise size which makes the two flags have the same surface area; the Iranian flag is therefore shorter and wider, which is NPOV and fair (the Iranian flag is a narrower design than the Iraqi flag). TomTheHand 15:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually i was refering to a version i remember from long time ago, around april somewhere, which makes your first edit a revert. Doesn't matter really, please see iran iraq war talk. --Spahbod ☼ 15:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's... really, really silly. TomTheHand 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, yes probably --Spahbod ☼ 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is no need to go back all the way to april, it seems you reverted to a version previous this: [2] which is 25th of july. Please do selfrevert any time now. --Spahbod ☼ 16:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not revert to that version or the previous one. The previous version makes the two flags the same width, which makes the Iranian flag smaller, while your version makes the two flags the same height, which makes the Iraqi flag smaller. My version makes them the same size. TomTheHand 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but selfreverted or not you have reverted back again, which makes it 4 reverts minus the selfrevert. Inspite of your revertion on halabja article which you have removed sourced material even tho i warned you before that next time you revert that article i will report. I am still not gonna report, so please selfrevert the iran iraq war, and if you still insist iranian flag looks bigger, then as i suggested we should get a second opinion ok. --Spahbod ☼ 08:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The three revert rule specifically does not count self reverts; please stop trying to intimidate me with Wikipedia policies you do not understand. I have read the article in The Independent, and it states that foreign companies provided expertise and equipment but does not state that they provided chemical weapons, so I changed the text to reflect what the source actually says. I see that you have been banned so this will not continue, but perhaps you will still read this response at some point. TomTheHand 11:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

Note: Varese Sarabande was a sockpuppet of Copperchair, who was blocked for 366 days on March 12, 2006 for edits which violated his ArbCom ruling.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. TomTheHand 18:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Set the example. Thank you. Varese Sarabande 18:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Halabja mediation

Hello TomTheHand. I noticed that you too are involved with the disputed material with which this mediation is concerned. I wonder if you could add your views on the nature of the dispute to the mediation section of the Halabja discussion page, under the heading "comments by others." Thank you. Rohirok 13:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add my views. TomTheHand 13:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

South Dakota class battleship

I've proposed the splitting of the article on the South Dakota-classes. Your comments would be welcomed. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the 190.10.0.36 IP as a sock puppet

I've been fighting his vandalism for 3 days and recommended him for 3 blocks already. I didn't know his history as a sock puppet. Thanks.--Tbeatty 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you spot another IP or user making very similar edits, please let me know or compare his editing pattern to Copperchair (talk · contribs), Esaborio (talk · contribs), Varese Sarabande (talk · contribs), and SPECTRE (talk · contribs) and file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets! TomTheHand 21:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on possible sockpuppetry

While I may have misidentified Larry Lawrence (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Copperchair (talk · contribs), but what do you think of Larry Lawrence being the puppetmaster for:

• Lunchtime (talk · contribs)
• Buy1get1free (talk · contribs)
• E Pluribus Koryn (talk · contribs)

If you look at their edit summaries they all have the unusual linking of POV and Talk in their edit summaries and seem to magically appear when one is in danger of violating WP:3RR. And there User pages and talk pages are eerily similar. This is especially true for Lunchtime and Larry Lawrence (as far as edits go). Thoughts? --Bobblehead 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but a CheckUser might be necessary. Copperchair never really tried to hide his socks so they were pretty easy to find, but in this case it's a little less obvious. TomTheHand 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair

I created an entry on WP:AN/I to see if one of the admin on there can do something about the frequent account creation of Copper. Here's hoping. --Bobblehead 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bobblehead. I posted a few links over there. I hope something can be done. Today Tony Camonte got blocked one hour after his first blatantly Copperchair edit, but he managed to make 28 edits in that time. It would be really helpful if we didn't have to put up with this. TomTheHand 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: AppleSearch

Would you take a look at the article and give an opinion about what is needed in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies? To me it looks like OR, but the author insists that because it is/was an Apple Computer product he doesn't have to have reference citations. Or is this an area where Wikipedia's encyclopedic rules do not apply? Mattisse(talk) 20:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article would be improved by inline citations, but it does list several references and shouldn't be accused of being OR. I glanced at the references and found that the claims made by the article are generally found there. I think that attempting to delete the article is inappropriate when all it needs is inline citation of the references listed at the bottom, even if the author refuses to perform the inline citations himself. TomTheHand 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K. So you are saying just let him do his own thing and if it's not referenced properly that is all right in this case? I'm not doubting the worth of the article but his refusal to use citations is absolute. I have never run into this type of resistance before in trying to help Wikipedia to reach its goal of being encyclopedic. Mattisse(talk) 21:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do think his refusal is a little odd, but hopefully your addition of "citation needed" tags around the article will show him what needs to be done. If he removes them without adding citations I'll back you up. He might just not know how to do in-line citations and might need help. I don't think it should go further than adding cite tags; the article does have references and shouldn't be deleted as OR. TomTheHand 21:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you so much! Mattisse(talk) 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think time and the Wiki process will help this article; it's still brand new. TomTheHand 21:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you come up with some well-referenced articles to use as examples?

There is another article Origin (software) where the writer seems to want to do the right thing and is asking for help. Do you know of well-referenced articles on software to use as examples? Mattisse(talk) 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Very controversial articles are often very well-referenced. The references might not necessarily be from reliable sources, so they may be poor examples of that, but they can be fine examples of citation technique. 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, and Hurricane Katrina are, in my opinion, pretty good about citations. TomTheHand 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the same thing on Fidel Castro -- at one point we had over 140 citation notes. I was thinking of articles of interest to the more technically-oriented, like the software guys. Your suggestion is a good one though as there are not very many well-referenced articles here. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 15:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)