User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

yOUR tARAEW-aLLA??
Explain your mother before i jab her redds! --Iodine Gibralter 08:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I... err... what? TomTheHand 08:14, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar!
Fir e  Fo  x  16:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

F-22
''Hey Prodego, I noticed that you made an addition to the F/A-22 page. You added some pretty interesting information and I was wondering if you could quote a source. I'd be interested in reading the relevant news stories / articles / whatever. TomTheHand 20:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)''


 * History Channel, I believe Modern Marvels, If you'd can't find the source and you really want it I'll try to find the exact show. Thanks for the compliment


 * Prodego  talk  20:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, yOUR tARAEW-aLLA?? What? If you don't want this I'll remove it.


 * Prodego  talk  20:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

''Thanks! I looked on History.com and it seems they'll be re-airing that episode in a couple of days. Also, in reference to the "yOUR tARAEW-aLLA??" bit, I've left it there for a very special reason. If I ever feel that I'm too close to spiritual enlightenment, I look at it and I'm suddenly confused as to the nature of the universe again. Thanks for the offer to remove it, though! TomTheHand 20:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)''

Signature
You should change your signature( ~ ) here are some examples courtesy of BD2412. DON'T change the example page. If you don't want to figure out how to insert your options into code I'll make the sig for you, It can say anything you like and is entered under pref and then Nickname.

Prodego  talk  20:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you decide on the sig?


 * I haven't decided on a sig yet. I'm not too worried about it, but I appreciate you showing me how to set one up.  I'll do it soon, but I generally have too much of an engineer's eye to do a good job of decorative stuff ;-)  Thanks! TomTheHand 00:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Another weird edit to the Bully article
Hi TomTheHand! First, yes: you're a victim of my tendancy to arbitraily contact wikipedians who seem to contribute value to the article in question! Second, I noticed that a recent addition (by an IP user) to the Bully article includes content and spelling that might both be described as "atrocious." Can you take a look and share your opinion as to whether the change is best met with 1) a rewrite (that I'm loathe to undertake), 2) a revert, or 3) possibly commenting it out until such a time as someone has the stomach to fix it? Thanks, Throbblefoot 03:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I've looked at the edit to the bully article, and it makes me worry that the contribution is original research. I'm leaning toward reverting and asking the anonymous contributor for a source, but I'm worried that this will cause him/her to leave Wikipedia. TomTheHand 15:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that this seems like original research, but even if it isn't, it still lacks citations. I'd like to avoid driving this user off, too. If we were to comment out the new section (rather than revert or delete), and request citations for the research on the talk page, do you think that might mollify them?-Throbblefoot 19:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop redirecting articles without a conensus
You redirect economic fascism, however just a couple weeks ago there was a vote that revealed no consensus with a default to keep. Just noting for the record that you have violated Wikipedia policy. RJII 04:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. The VfD has nothing to do with this, and there is a current obvious consensus that the article needs to be fixed.  The first step is moving to a more appropriate title. TomTheHand 04:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Tom, if you're still around, is there anyone you can approach to revert economic fascism? It's now unprotected. Neither of us should revert because we're just inviting trouble if we do. James James 06:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

RJII
''I know that you said you would not be seeking to get involved in RJII's ArbCom, but nevertheless, here is a link to it: Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug. I thought you might at least be interested in it. I have posted to the Evidence page. If you do decide to get involved, I'd appreciate any further information you can provide. TomTheHand 15:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)''


 * Hi, Tom. Thanks for the link. I don't think there would be any point pursuing arbcom proceedings against RJII. It seems to be very time-consuming for rather little reward. Even if he's banned, he'll simply get a new ID and do the same thing with that. If an editor really doesn't want to cooperate, I don't see that they can be made to. Still, there's lots more encyclopaedia for me to work on without worrying about it. James James 06:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

''Fred, could you have a look at this situation when you get a moment and give us your opinion? In summary, the above case began as two separate ones: Firebug accusing RJII of incivility and personal attacks, and RJII accusing Firebug of intentionally disruptive editing. Others (including myself) have since had encounters with RJII and have run into much the same behavior. Firebug recently quit Wikipedia. RJII believes that the arbitration should now be dropped, but I am of the opinion that the arbitration should proceed, and if necessary I would be willing to step in as the plaintiff. I had previously contributed evidence to the case. Can you tell me what should happen now? TomTheHand 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)''


 * The arbitration will probably continue, although I have not looked at it yet. Fred Bauder 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

LOLz
Work out, it's good for carrying nukes!

caseycool articles
''I speedied Saberwolves because the author states that they are his own invention; I'll go ahead and AfD it instead. TomTheHand 18:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)''


 * I figured that was the reason, and i'm guessing the article will hit the trash eventually, but both his articles should at least get the chance to be cited properly. I have a very detailed summary of my tagging in both talk pages at saberwolves and forest wraiths. I've also left a note on his user talk to notify him. (Radiomanlaughs 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

hi, i am caseycool, i got the message and i was moving them to my own homepage when i descovered that Forest Wraiths has already been deleted. Shouldn't i have had a chance to place it on my home page so i could add to it until my books get written, then i could place them and not have to worrey about speedy deletion.

User: Caseycool

Power band
Hey Sfoskett,

''I've just begun writing an article on power band. It seems like an important term and one often used when engines are discussed. However, I think it's the first time I've ever tried to write an article from scratch. It might be better off merged with another topic, but I didn't really see an appropriate one. I know you're interested in automotive articles, so I was hoping I could ask for your input on the article. Thank you! TomTheHand 21:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)''


 * Looks good! Congrats on your first article!  I changed "RPM" to "rpm" to be consistent and added the "peaky" and "flexible" terms, and some examples, but other than that it looks good.  Engine tuning is the closest article I know, though horsepower has some similar discussion.  --SFoskett 14:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
I have added some evidence at the request for arbitration on RJII. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sig
Decide on that sig yet? ;-) It's been awhile. Prodego  talk  21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Car size in Audi A6
I'm sorry, but what "wiki" definitions are those? The ones in Vehicle size class are the official American definitions. However, there is no way the rest of the world would consider a car with 492 cm (that's 193 inches) in length to be midsize. That car belongs in the European E-segment, which is the "executive" class. Mid-size refers to cars to cars in the C and D-segments, that is to say, a VW Golf/Jetta (C) or Passat (D). In regard to your question, both the A6 and A8 are fullsize. The A3 and A4 are midsize. And Audi doesn't sell the A2 (the actual compact) in North America. A Toyota Corolla isn't a compact, it's lower midsize. A Toyota Yaris isn't a subcompact, it's a compact. The Toyota Aygo (which you've probably never seen) is a subcompact. Pc13 13:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was relying on the definitions in Mid-size car and Full-size car. Whereas I understand your point, I don't see why reclassifying the cars according to what they'd be called in Europe would be better.  There seems to be a consensus already that the Audi A8, BMW 7 Series, and Mercedes-Benz S-Class are full-size and the Audi A6, BMW 5 Series, and Mercedes-Benz E-Class are mid-size. TomTheHand 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the consensus, which is clearly US-biased (and based on SAE definition, if I'm not mistaken). The mid-size car definition even admits that European and Japanese mid-size cars are smaller than what an American would call midsize. Cars the size of an Audi A6 or a Mercedes E-Class come attached to a stigma of luxury, that any car of similar size would be forced to compete with that luxury. That is the reason Opel and Ford abandoned the E-segment, and that Peugeot and Renault have problems competing in it. The big bucks are in the B (compact, Fiesta/Yaris/Polo) and C-segments (lower midsize, Focus/Corolla/Golf). A Ford Five Hundred could not survive for long outside of the particularities of home market (of course, the Five Hundred is far from a big success in its native market, but that's beside the point). The European cars you're trying to keep alone in full-size segment exist in a very limited market, where size isn't even a consideration, but luxury level is. The F-segment exists solely to cater to the needs of a select group of wealthy individuals. The E-segment (A6, E-Class, 5-Series) is the range-topper for most generalist brands, when they bother with it. 475-480 cm (over 185 and under 190 inches) is what the rest of the world would consider the "unwritten rule" border between midsize and large size. Pc13 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be 100% in favor of including two size classifications on each car page: the European one (A/B/C/D/E/F) and the American one (subcompact/compact/mid-size/full-size) but I'd be against trying to equate European size classes to American names (the Jetta's a C so it's mid-size, etc). TomTheHand 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we could do that. Something like NA: Midsize; Euro: E
 * I believe that your view is as European-biased as mine is American-biased. The Ford Crown Victoria is almost 5.4 meters long, which puts it solidly in the European F-segment according to Vehicle size class, but I would never say that it caters to the needs of a select group of wealthy individuals.  Even the Chevrolet Impala and Ford Taurus, which many Americans would consider mid-size cars, are longer than 5 meters.  I'm glad you agree about including both size classifications.  I hope there isn't a lot of argument from others. TomTheHand 15:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Tom :-) That's why I mentioned the Ford Five Hundred. By virtue of its size, it would be in the E-segment, but of course, it's much too cheap to be considered a contender. Still, the Japanese classification is much closer to the European than to the American one, and that most emerging markets (India, Brazil) use the Euro/JPN classifications. Although, I wonder if there is a need to identify and use a strict Japanese categorization. Pc13 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Change of Manufacturer from Audi to Volkswagen AG in Audi_S4
Hi. I don't see the point of this change. Audi is the name on the car's title, Audi is encoded in the VIN, etc. Audi is of course a subsidiary of VAG, but that doesn't mean VW is the manufacturer. To take an extreme example, should you change the manufacturer listed for the Lamborghini_Gallardo to Volkswagen AG as well? I think most would agree that's silly. Kday 13:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To an extent I see your point. However, it seems more common on Wikipedia to list the parent company rather than the marque.  See Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum, Maybach 57 and 62, and Mercedes-Benz S-Class, or Chevrolet Impala, Pontiac G6, and Cadillac STS, or BMW 3 series, MINI (BMW), and Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003).  The article is titled Audi S4, so it's pretty obvious that Audi is the name of the marque, and listing Audi as the manufacturer does not really add information.  Listing VAG does.


 * While I personally would not change Lamborghini Gallardo to VAG right now, I wouldn't object to someone else making that change. Moreover, the Gallardo engine is making its way into the Audi S8, and the Gallardo chassis is to be used with the upcoming Audi R8 Road Car.  As Lamborghini seems to be becoming less of an indepedent manufacturer and more of a VAG marque, in the future I might try to change its manufacturer to VAG. TomTheHand 14:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)