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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for resolving the dfu on [3], [4], [5], [6]. I was not sure after an editor dfued them all during an edit conflict as to whether they were legit or not. Your action means that I can keep adding such pictures to llustrate an articles. Taprobanus 21:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the background behind the gigantic DFU issue, which affected thousands of images:

1. 1. The images had DFU tags placed on them on May 31 or June 1. These DFU tags requested that an editor add a fair use rationale, but the editor should not remove the DFU tag; an administrator would review the rationale and decide if the rationale is adequate.
   2. Many images had fair use rationales added.
   3. The DFU tag was edited on June 5 to say that if you added a rationale, you should remove the DFU tag. Editors who added fair use rationales before this date had no way of knowing of the change.
   4. Naconkantari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted all images that had DFU tags from May 31 or June 1 without any kind of review.

I'm trying to review the deletions and restore the ones that had fair use rationales added. I am not passing judgement on the fair use rationales themselves, but rather trying to retroactively apply the change in DFU use: if a rationale is added, the DFU tag should get removed and the image shouldn't be speedily deleted.

Someone could very well still decide that the fair use rationale isn't adequate and work to have the image deleted. I'm not too interested in taking part in that on either side of the debate, but just trying to restore images that were deleted without review so that they can go through the proper process for such things.

I'm glad to hear that the work is appreciated. TomTheHand 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surfing around the internet looking for the crush depth for the Balao and came upon a few posts on submarine enthusiast forums which points out the crush depth to be around 900 ft or more. The source for their posts seems to be from books on U.S. WW2 submarines.

Here are two that I've just grabbed from uboat.net and subsims.com:

http://www.uboat.net/forums/read.php?20,64633,64663,quote=1

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109972 (12th post)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by V.C. Sniper (talk • contribs) 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the latter, I see comments that,

"According to Padfield one of the best-kept secrets of the war was that the Balao pioneered the use of STS (armor) for the pressure hull. Another source (which I will supply this afternoon) states that they estimated the Balao and Tench classes would be good to 900 feet. No official verification, though."

and for the Tench class,

• Test Depth: 400 ft (122 m)

• Max Depth reported: 640 ft (384 m)"

The "900 ft" figure doesn't seem very well sourced. Without that, I don't think we can say "Rated crush depth" (emph added). And I doubt a metric conversion more precise than "270 m" would be justified. Also, it doesn't really fit in the infobox, which doesn't have a line for "crush depth".

I suggest taking the claim out of the infobox, and maybe adding something to the Balao- and/or Tench-class pages about the extreme depths submarines are known to have reached and survived.

—wwoods 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to V.C. Sniper on his talk page. Ordinarily if someone responds on my talk page I will continue the conversation here, but I wanted to make sure Sniper got my response. TomTheHand 23:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a requirement for an RfC is an attempt (documatable by diffs) to resolve the issues with the user involved directly and informally. Such an attempt should be sincere, not pro forma. Have you posted on User talk:Naconkantari asking him to change his behviour in regard to deletions? (I have) If you ahve not done so, i urge you to do so. if he responds and engages on the topic, well and good. if he ignores your msg, that is another matter. In case you haven't read it recently I suiggest reviewing Dispute Resolution before we start an RfC, lest it get hung up on details. DES ^(talk) 18:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have attempted to resolve the issues with Naconkantari. When I spoke with him about the blocks, he essentially said that that was just the way he does things. When I attempted to contact him several times about his failure to attempt to undelete the images he mistakenly deleted, he ignored me. I can document this with diffs for the RfC. I have considered an RfC for some time, but I was unsure if anyone else would support one. When I noticed that you were interested in initiating one I contacted you immediately. TomTheHand 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: I was not personally involved in the incident where Naconkantari repeatedly deleted the user pages of sockpuppets, but many users did attempt to resolve the issue with him and I can provide diffs of those. TomTheHand 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that will help. I am going to start drafting an RfC. I will not file it until Naconkantari has either responded to my latest msgs on his talk page, or it has become clear that he will not respond. DES ^(talk) 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started drafting -- see User:DESiegel/RFC Draft/Naconkantari. The RfC is not yet ready to post. Feel free to add diffs or reasons for the dispute. Please do not move this out of my userspace, however. I WILL be doign more on this, probably yet tonight (I live in the US eastern (UTC-5) timezone.) If yoiu think anythign I have written is incorrect or ill advaised, please drop me a note. DES ^(talk) 01:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will post to the RFC over the course of the next day. Please let me know before you're ready to post it, to make sure that I'm done. TomTheHand 12:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate what you have been doing in response to the Naconkatari deletions. I was wondering if you could look at what has recently happened with orphaned fairuse images being deleted 5 days earlier than the templates and categories said they would be. See my comments on User talk:^demon, WT:CSD#Orphaned images, and WP:ANI#Orphaned image being deleted after 48 hours instead of 7 days, but my points don't seem to be getting across to anyone there. I am hoping you can look at this, and if you can tell me that there was nothing improper about those deletions, I will not pursue this matter any further. DHowell 05:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me; however, this time around things just didn't work out. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if plot and character information and screencaps from the leak of the pilot for The Sarah Connor Chronicles should be included in the article. I know you helped out on the Terminator (character) article a while back, and that's why I ask you. Is there a policy concerning leaked information? I'd appreciate your input on the article talk page ColdFusion650 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you
		Thank you for your support of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. —TomStar81 (Talk) 05:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I have just completed my first new article, Brown Shipbuilding, and as it's related to WP:Ships, I'd like you to review it. I am pretty confident the terminology is accurate, but I'd especially like to know if the stub, categories, etc are appropriate. I'd also like your advice concerning appropriate wikiprojects - WikiProject Military history and Houston, perhaps? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Maralia 21:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this late response. I've been busy "in real life." The article looks very good. It looks like it may in fact be a bit long to call a stub; it seems short but fairly complete. It'd be great to find a photograph. I searched navsource.org [7] and tried to find a photograph of a ship under construction at Brown Shipbuilding, but I didn't turn up anything. They do have a number of photographs of recently completed ships "off Brown Shipbuilding Co.", but I don't know how close we're talking about. Is it visible in the background, or twenty miles away? For example, in this photograph [8], if that's Brown Shipbuilding right behind the LSM, it might be a good picture to try to add, but if it's just some random factory near Houston then I don't know how helpful the picture is. If we can't find a photo of Brown Shipbuilding, maybe a photo of USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) would be a good substitute. TomTheHand 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I didn't have any luck finding a picture. I agree the Samuel B. Roberts would be better than nothing - will dig around a bit more before I give up and resort to that. In the meantime since that article, I've written two more -- USS Moonstone (PYc-9) and USS Koka (AT-31). I promise I won't ask you to personally review everything I write, but these are my first ship articles, so I'd appreciate knowing if I'm on the right track. Thanks again for your help. Maralia 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These also look good. I have a few suggestions:

1. WP:SHIPS likes to use template-based infoboxes instead of copying and pasting a table into the article. Check out {{Infobox Ship Example}} for the latest, most versatile one, and {{Infobox Ship}} for a slightly older one that is still very popular. These templates allow formatting to be the same across all ship articles. If you have any questions about using them, I can definitely help you out.
2. We have another template, {{USN flag}}, which will provide you with the right ensign (the correct number of stars on the flag) depending on the date. If you click on the link you can read about how to use it.
3. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Categorization for categorization guidelines. For USS Moonstone, I would suggest adding Category:World War II patrol vessels of the United States. I'd also like to suggest using country categories (as opposed to navy categories): Category:Patrol vessels of the United States and Category:Tugs of the United States (which will have to be created). Categorizing by country makes it easier to navigate because it's not necessary to know the name of the navy. For the US, it's obvious, for Greece, the name is less well-known to folks who aren't navy buffs.
4. I would create red links to articles that definitely need to be created. For example, on USS Koka, I'd link to Bagaduce class tug. That will make it easier for people to see what needs to be created, and when the class article is eventually written it will already be linked to by its members.

I'd be happy to give you advice on other articles. TomTheHand 20:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, you asked for it: next up is City of Washington (ship). This one nearly gave me a stroke when it came to categorization - it's a steamship AND a brig, merchant AND passenger, Victorian Era AND Spanish American War, privately owned AND briefly an Army transport...ugh. I am also less confident about the language in this one. Thanks for the advice on the previous two articles - I've read up on the infobox and flag templates and categorization guidelines, and applied them to those articles (at least I thought I had, but i see a redlink, so I have a category to fix still). I just located the template for a civilian ship infobox, so I'll add that to City of Washington shortly. Appreciate your taking the time to look it over. Maralia 05:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I've put a lot of effort into creating consistent categorization guidelines for military vessels because that's where my interest lies, but I haven't tried to fix up civilian stuff at all yet. The only categorization input I have is that I really, really dislike the "Victorian Era" categories and prefer to use them only on British ships. If you have a strong interest in civilian ships and are in the mood, you might be able to come up with some categorization guidelines for them. TomTheHand 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope I didn't overstep the mark with my response. I was rather nettled by it all, and would value your opinion either way. Kind regards, Benea 00:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think it's all ended amicably for now. There's hope for the Special relationship after all. Benea 01:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I see that you are both interested in naval history and a stickler for verifiable citations. That makes you a perfect candidate to answer this question for me. Have you ever heard of Lewis Nixon (a naval architect)? It is claimed that he invented sonar, and there are lots of internet sites that repeat this claim, but none of them seem to lead anywhere. The claim is either complete nonsense or a valuable piece of little known history. I have challenged the statement here, and I am concerned it may be one of those examples where Wikipedia is creating a myth, exporting it the wider internet, and then completing the circle by reimporting the myth. I don't mean to imply anything underhand is going on, but I have the impression that the proper checks have not been made. I just wondered if you knew anything about the man or his supposed invention. Any other thoughts? Thunderbird2 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Lewis Nixon, and I know very little about the invention of sonar, but it really, really pisses me off when false information gets put into Wikipedia and then spread throughout the Internet. I'll try to dig up some info. TomTheHand 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Nixon gets 16 hits on Navy.mil, but his name never appears on the same page as sonar; I find that to be incredibly suspicious. I'd like to see if I can make it to the NC State library tomorrow to check this out. TomTheHand 22:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found something. It is an analysis written by Lewis Nixon of lessons learnt from the Titanic. Read the text starting "The eophone is ..." and then "The submarine bell ..." on p750. It proves he was at least aware of the possibilities. What do you think? Thunderbird2 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it doesn't say much, because by that time (June 1912) Richardson had already applied for his patent. Thunderbird2 00:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. Thunderbird2 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TomTheHand. Sorry about the category reorganization. I was unaware of any categorization system for ships. (I suggest that the ship project put a notification at the top of the talk page and/or at the top of the category page. If the category page is chosen, you may want to link to an explanation rather than putting a paragraph or two at the top of all of the categories.) I was not going to replace the category. I was just correcting the category hierarchy. Category:United States Navy submarines is a subcategory of . Generally, an article or category should not appear in both a category and a subcategory of that category. Many categories were in both "Category:United States Navy submarines" and "Category:Submarines of the United States". I was making it so that categories and articles that should be in "Category:United States Navy submarines" were in it. At the same time, I removed those articles from "Category:Submarines of the United States". If a visitor came to "Category:Submarines of the United States", he or she would see the subcategory "Category:United States Navy submarines". Since almost all of the articles and categories are about U.S. Navy submarines, the subcategory would be very conspicuous.

If it is preferred to keep the articles and categories all in "Category:Submarines of the United States" that is fine, but I suggest that "Category:United States Navy submarines" be deleted because they would be nearly identical. As far as I know, only "Category:Research submarines of the United States" and its articles do not belong in the U.S. Navy category.

I have to leave soon and may not be back for a while, so it may take a couple of hours to several days, depending on how things go, to get back to you if you leave another message. Thanks, Kjkolb 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're essentially seeing is an uneasy compromise between two points of view as to how ships should be categorized: by country, for ease of browsing by people unfamiliar with the subject, or by navy, for the greatest possible accuracy. They're two separate structures, but in some cases the navy category has been made a subcategory of the country category. I believe that United States Navy submarines should be deleted and upmerged, but similar deletion discussions have resulted in no consensus. Sorry it's such a mess. TomTheHand 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you, as an Admin, for feedback on a relatively simple edit war in which I've become involved. In brief: An editor introduced content into a biography that consisted of speculation of murder. I reverted with a note to see the talk page. On talk, I challenged the editor to provide additional sources to support notability (i.e. one guy saying "She did it!" is not speculation worthy of inclusion). He has participated in the discussion on the talk page, but refuses to accept the consensus of several editors, and persists in reinserting his content and disregarding the concerns of other editors in a most tendentious manner.

The article talk page: Talk:Katharine Graham

Related discussion: on my talk page and his talk page (history)

This is the first time I've run into a dispute of this magnitude, and I'd value your input on what I could have done better, as well as what I can/should do from here. I posted on WP:BIO a few days ago seeking outside involvement without much success, and we are rapidly approaching a 3RR issue. Is RfC the next step? Appreciate any advice you might have for me. Maralia 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this and see what's to be done. One thing I'd like to say off the bat is that while an RfC about a user's conduct is a pretty big deal, an RfC on an article is not, and it's a great way to get a few fresh perspectives on an issue. No need to hesitate to submit an RfC for a content dispute as long as you feel capable of providing an anonymous, neutral description of the dispute. TomTheHand 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read up on the debate, checked into his sources, and removed his edits. However, at this point, having participated in the debate. I don't feel that I can participate as an admin. If he violates the 3RR or something we'll need to report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. TomTheHand 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wholeheartedly agree that his source was fringe, but I chose what I thought was the less confrontational path of requesting additional sources, rather than openly challenging the one presented. Sometimes you can't win for losing. Maralia 19:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is a bad thing, but sometimes you just can't come up with a compromise with someone with a fringe opinion. I'm by no means advocating majority rule, but at a certain point you've got to say "Look, you're the only one who thinks the article should be this way. We're going to change it to how all of us think it should be, and if you change it back we're going to revert it." The 3RR keeps situations like that from going on forever. TomTheHand 19:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Parlahueso isa sock puppet of copperchair The same reverts at Battle_of_Chora as User:Casavette. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I'll second that. Altough he is apparently a new user, Parlahueso has jumped straight into an edit war on the Battle of Chora article, reverting to a past version by Casavette.

See his reverts:[9], [10], [11] and that of Casavette: [12]. There's also an IP 190.10.0.18, stragely similar to 190.10.0.111, who has made the same kind of reverts: [13], [14]. Can you block them out of hand or should someone file a new request for checkuser? Regards. Raoulduke47 11:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not jumping on this yesterday; I read the message early in the morning and by the time I was ready to do some editing I had forgotten about it. In about two hours I'll review their edits and probably block, but I'll do a checkuser report anyway to get sleepers nuked as well. If you guys wanted to fill out the RFCU I'd appreciate it, but I'll do it myself if you don't mind the wait. TomTheHand 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, both are blocked, the RFCU confirmed their sockpuppetry, and no sleepers were found. Thanks for the report, guys! TomTheHand 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you for your diligence. Raoulduke47 19:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. After working with User:Rif Winfield, he brought this problem to my attention:

Benea, I do have another item where your help would be appreciated, in connection with the Williams design 64s of the Intrepid Class. There were fifteen ships to this design, but three of them were incorrectly separated out on WP pages as a spurious Magnanime class. There was no separate Magnanime design - the Magnanime, Diadem and Sampson were all units of the Intrepid Class. I have added them to [Intrepid class ship of the line] but the existing references to [Magnanime class ship of the line] needs deletion. The original error appears to have come about through copying from Brian Lavery's The Ship of the Line; but careful studying of the original draughts for these vessels reveals no distinctive feature, and I have discussed this with Brian who can not recall any reason why he separated the three ships out in his book when written in the 1980s - he indicated it was probably a mistake that needs correction (his superb and oft-quoted book has been reprinted but never corrected). Can you kindly correct the disambiguation and links accordingly? Thanks. Rif Winfield 13:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rif_Winfield"

I can fix the links and what-not, but it seems then that Magnanime class ship of the line and [[Category:Magnanime class ships of the line]] need deleting. What do you think, and if you think they should, would you be able to help? Kind regards, Benea 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would first try dropping Martocticvs a line and talking about this with him. He's been off-Wiki for a couple of weeks but not so long that I think he's disappeared long-term. If you discuss it and he agrees with you, he could put a {{db-author}} tag on both the article and the category and I'd be happy to delete them both. If you're not able to get in touch with him, I would suggest making Magnanime class ship of the line a redirect to Intrepid class ship of the line (you can do that yourself) and starting up a CFD for the category. I can't just delete it based on your explanation; it would need to go through the process. If you post on WP:SHIPS about the CFD, many members (including me) will !vote delete based on your explanation, so you shouldn't have any trouble. TomTheHand 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a redirect occurred to me not long after I posted, and would catch anyone using Lavery, so I suspect that would be the way to go. I'll put it to Martocticvs and see what he thinks. When I've got his opinion, I'll post the Category for deletion too. Thanks, Benea 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posed a question relating to the Gneisenau class on the talk page, and I'd like your thoughts, please. Thanks. Parsecboy 17:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, thanks for catching [15] my dumb ASSessment mistake. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no problem. I was just doing stuff like making sure all the featured and good articles have importance ratings, and making sure NA-class stuff had an NA-importance and vice-versa. TomTheHand 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

excuse the 'it is' comment, i was in the middle of typing " it is road legal, it was tested as fully road legal, for the UK site pistonheads " but I hit return a little too early. I didnt want you to think i was being arrogant/rude.Sennen goroshi 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I'm not sure whether you consider this matter closed, but it's certainly gone quiet. You will have noticed the changes I made to knot (speed) and to nautical mile. Until you give me the nod I will leave the SHIPS articles as they are in this regard, but unless you ask me not to I plan to tackle some aircraft articles. [I have made a start with Boeing 747 :)]. Thunderbird2 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the discussion could have reached a definite conclusion, but my last post to the topic was to say that I'm alright with using nmi if everyone else is. I've used it a couple of times already, though I've also used nm because I often copy and paste from old edits I've made. I'm going to try to use nmi more in the future. Please continue to edit ship articles if you want and use nmi. TomTheHand 21:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits on aircraft pages have sparked this discussion. Just thought you may be interested :) Thunderbird2 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the site you refered to, however, if you'll check again, I believe you'll notice that the track info matches the atricle Whitest Kids U' Know (album), and not the afore mentioned "Skits". I believe the Skits article is an inaccurate double of the Album article. Also, the Album article is the one linked on the Whitest Kids U'Know. I'm still a little unfamiliar with the ins and outs of Wikidom. Should I instead purpose the two be merged? I appreciate any help on this matter.

---Leodmacleod - 10:23 24-09-07 (UTC)

A merge would be a better idea, or a regular "Articles for Deletion" discussion, which is the usual way of deciding whether or not an article should be deleted. Articles are only immediately deleted for a very specific set of reasons. On the site, I was referring to this page, which is the set of tracks referred to in Whitest Kids U' Know: The Skits. TomTheHand 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at {{WikiProject Ships}} for me? I tried to shift it from Category:WikiProject Ships to Category:WikiProject Ships templates by updating the specified line in {{WikiProject Ships/doc}}, however it is not working as expected. While the banner template looks like it is now a member of Category:WikiProject Ships templates, it is actually showing up as a member of the parent Category:WikiProject Ships. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't figure it out either :-/ TomTheHand 02:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, hope you are keeping well. I've been moving a few Chilean ships about, in that they were being disambiguated by their type (e.g. CNS Almirante Lynch (destroyer)) rather than year of launch (since the pennant number is not known). The user seems to have got the wrong end of the stick, and has moved this from CNS Almirante Lynch (1912) to CNS Almirante Lynch (1913), thinking that we disambigute by year of commissioning. I've dropped a note correcting him on this, but could you move the page back over the redirect? Thanks, --Benea 12:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]