User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 15

Heading cases
Tom, could you look at this diff, and tell me if I'm off base here? It's my understanding that sentence case applies even to infoboxes. Perhaps it would be best to convert the table to a template, but I'm not very familiar with the new multi-template as yet. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're not off base at all. Wikipedia uses sentence case. TomTheHand (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like user:Maralia has already updated the infobox. She's relentless! :) - BillCJ (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No joke! Not only did she update the infobox, but she found some bugs in it in the process and got me to fix 'em! TomTheHand (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A (distant) relative of mine served on USS Essex (CV-9) during Apollo 7 recovery, and I've been meaning to work on that article - your note here about LHD-2 pinged my memory purely by name association, so I got started out of guilt :) Maralia (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Help me Please!
I'm new here and is there anyway you can help me get started? --The Mind&#39;s Voice (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --The Mind&#39;s Voice (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

yo!
--ANOMALY-116 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC) relation to anomaly-117


 * Yo! TomTheHand (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin help
Tom, could you look at the discussion here on my talk page, and see if you can help answer the question? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
Hi there Tom. As I said on the RfA, I am quite frankly rather mystified by your comment that I "don't compromise or seek consensus well" as I have supported you 9 times out of 10 on your proposals and never made an issue out of any of the small differences of opinion I have had with you or anyone else at Wikiships. Would you mind providing an example or two of these alleged flaws? I would appreciate that. Gatoclass (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to say off the bat that I think you're an awesome editor and Wikipedia's a better place having you around. However, I don't think you would make a good admin at this time, and since you've asked me for details about why I feel that way, I owe it to you to tell you.
 * I was very bothered by the whole barnstar issue. During the nomination process, you had many criticisms of images submitted by others, but you didn't contribute any images yourself.  You didn't bother to read Kralizec's proposed decision process and objected after nominations were closed.  Kralizec explained that he had laid the process out very clearly days in advance, and you stated that you hadn't read it, but still felt that the nomination process should be reopened for several weeks.  The winning image had overwhelming support, but afterward you still felt it necessary to say that you didn't like it and were planning to come up with a better one... someday.  Overall, your actions struck me as disrespectful to Kralizec, the initiator of the barnstar proposal, to Dual Freq, who produced twelve of the fifteen candidates, and to everyone who voted, because their decision wasn't what you wanted.
 * You've said that you feel I'm 'confusing a clearly expressed opinion with "inability to compromise or seek consensus."' My issue is not that you ignore or resist consensus, but that the way you discuss issues isn't conducive to coming to a compromise.  For example, here, saying "I can't imagine why it was changed" and referring to the the Class in the Characteristics section as "the wrong place" makes people defensive.  In general, I feel that this is the way you approach many issues: if you don't understand why something is done, or if you weigh alternatives differently from someone else, you give your opinion in a way that makes others feel you don't respect theirs.
 * Admins have to deal with a lot of prickly situations, and how you come off is important; I feel that you don't actively seek compromise and the way you speak about issues is not likely to diffuse a disagreement. TomTheHand (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the explanation. But I think you are being hypercritical.


 * I don't think I'm going to reply to all your accusations in detail, so I will just say I think they are pretty darned pernickety. I will concede you are probably correct on the "I can't imagine why it was changed" and "it's in the wrong place" comments. I mistakenly assumed that the infoboxes were some old legacy things that had been around for years, had I realized I was referring to the work of current members I would have been much more diplomatic, and simply asked why the changes were made. So that was a bit of a faux pas on my part. I do sometimes forget that all the features I'm inclined to take for granted on Wikipedia were built by individuals and that sometimes these individuals are still around.


 * I don't consider that my comments in the barnstar section were out of line. If these were works of art that people had spent hundreds of hours putting together, naturally I would exercise tact, but they were being knocked out in literally a matter of minutes as I was posting. In those circumstances I see no reason not to speak plainly about my likes and dislikes. Nor do I see a problem with volunteering to try and come up with something better. I certainly don't expect a pat on the back for it, but I am a little suprised to be criticized for it. The reason I made the offer to come up with something "someday" is because I have no paint program skills and it is something I will have to go to the trouble of learning - again on behalf of the project.


 * Admittedly I'm not always the most tactful person in the world Tom, and it's relatively easy to tread on toes when you only have text to get across your message. But in general I think you'll find me pretty reasonable if there is ever an issue you want to discuss with me. Gatoclass (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In your RFA, you said that you had gotten the impression that you had upset me in the past and I had stopped responding in conversations. That's not the case.  Rather, I felt that we had both said our piece, and nothing further would change unless others chimed in.  That's the way I feel about this as well.  You requested an example or two and I've given them.  You've said that you think I'm being hypercritical; I don't want to argue with you about that.  I still feel that the way you deal with people won't work well for adminship.  I don't have a grudge against you, and if you run for adminship again in the future I will judge you based on how you deal with people then, not on the barnstar incident of way-back-when.    I'm looking forward to working with you at WP:SHIPS in the future. TomTheHand (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

use of the word Tiptronic
You deleted the word "Tiptronic" from Direct-Shift_Gearbox page. I've re-instated it because Volkswagen AG, the Volkswagen brand (and associated vehicles), along with subsidiary companies of Volkswagen AG (such as Audi) are all licensed to use the word "Tiptronic". Indeed, Tiptronic is freely used in official sales brochures, on official VWAG websites, and in official vehicle owners manuals.

Perhaps some clarification of the word Tiptronic should be sought - whilst I accept that Porsche initially coined the term Tiptronic, is is now clearly licensed to other manufacturers. Furthermore, Tiptronic is now commonly used as a "generic" term to describe manual operation of automatic transmissions.

Kind regards, T_T —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teutonic Tamer (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I didn't realize that Tiptronic has become so generic.  I didn't think to even check if VW had licensed the name because I thought "DSG isn't even a slushbox; Tiptronic can't be the right word for it." TomTheHand (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, no worries. I suppose it can be surprising how many "trade" names become generic in use - I suppose "Hoover" must be the most prevalent, but there must be many more too!  T_T Teutonic Tamer 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

KGV BB edit
Hey Tom, when I looked at the page I had seen the text broken up, when I removed the 1st convert templet it went away. Looking back on the previous edit it is no longer there. I am not certain but perhaps my IE browser was just acting up. Feel free to revert if you like. Tirronan (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are requested to establish consensus
Please see this discussion: Talk:HMS_Vanguard_%2823%29. Thanks, -MBK004 00:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Warship template
I meant to bring this up some time ago, but forgot until now. The template warship is at odds with USS, USNS, and HMS, in that (1) standard output does not include the ship designation, and (2) there are no optional display parameters at all. I would like to see it operate the same way that the others do. Thoughts? Maralia (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can do that. It might take me a day or two; I'm really busy at work this week. TomTheHand (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would tackle it myself, but that template takes an extra variable compared to the others, so I'd really have to sort through the code; I figured you could do it lightyears faster. Since we'll be changing the default output, I suppose&mdash;to be excruciatingly precise&mdash;we should alter the syntax of existing transclusions. I can do that when the time comes. Thanks again. Maralia (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin help/advice
Tom, could you take a look at my post here, and point me in the right direction on how to handle this group of new articles? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from. I would first suggest poking around AFD a little to look for similar cases.  If you still feel that they should be deleted, I'd go ahead and nominate all the lists in a single AFD (see here).  It does seem to me that this data is simply pulled off the given web site; it'd probably be better to just put a link to there on Demographics of India. TomTheHand (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. THe demographics page seems the best place for the link to the original site. I'll bring that up on the "Noticeboard for India" talk page, and see what happens. I'll only use AFD as a last resort, partly because I hate filing them! :) Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Era categories on class articles
Sorry. I didn't know about the distinction between era categories vs. era articles. Thanks for letting me know. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. It was a long discussion with a lot of changing opinions, but I think it's felt that eras on class categories imply that every ship in that category served in that era (not necessarily true), while eras on class articles don't imply that to the same extent, and it's kind of nice to see what classes served in an era instead of just seeing a list of ships. TomTheHand (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up about my country vs. navy flub. I looked at and saw that it was a grand-child of, and thought that I was deleting a parent category. Thanks to you, I now see that, indeed,  is not.
 * By the way, I do appreciate the notices about things I may not be doing per consensus, project guidelines, etc. I enjoy helping out, but don't want to end up making more work for others (as I seem to be doing for you lately). — Bellhalla (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly think your work is invaluable; I haven't been able to edit much lately but I've been stunned by the amount of high-quality categorization work you've been doing. I'll let you know if I have comments on anything else, but please keep up the good work! TomTheHand (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates et al
Saw your note. Sorry to hear things are rough. If there's anything I can do to help, drop me an IM (I'm usually on but invisible) or a note on my talk&mdash;consider me available for anything from listening to random ranting (lord knows you've tolerated enough of mine) to picking up template work. If I can't do it myself, I'll find someone who can; you're certainly the best at our templates, but you needn't feel responsible for the entire burden. Hope things get better for you soon. Maralia (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maralia! I... don't actually know how to IM someone who's invisible ;-) Please IM me some evening and teach me; we haven't talked in a while. TomTheHand (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Ahn Yong-Bok class destroyers
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Ahn Yong-Bok class destroyers, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Ahn Yong-Bok class destroyers has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Ahn Yong-Bok class destroyers, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tom
Thank you for your question Tom. I have answered your question on my talk page. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)