User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 2

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, TomTheHand! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe 's talk 15:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the page I created that I want
Not the information. I'm not interested in pursuing anything about the Desktop replacement computer page anymore. I believe that mensch • will find my page for me if it can be found. He really is a good guy and has been a bright light to me, as I am new on Wikipedia. KarenAnn 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And please don't patronize me. Everything you wrote about getting the information, I had already done. I had plenty of dealing with history pages on Fidel Castro. KarenAnn 20:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Desknotes
And I'd like to know why you are so insistent that I not. KarenAnn 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If it means the same thing, then why was the name changed in the first place? And why do you not change it back? The computer articles on Wikipedia have Desknote links. Maybe you should inform the ignorant authors of those pages that they need to update their link names so you won't have this muddle of redirects. But then, I saw from glancing at your talk page that you are rather fond of redirecting, resulting in a stirred up and angry populace. KarenAnn 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Will you stay out of my business?
What do you care about The Hollywood Reporter. Are you going to interfere in every page I am involved with? I've already have tried to distance myse;f from places where you crop up. Please stay away from The Hollywood Reporter - a jewel of a piece. I know it needs a lot of work. But don't you have something else to do? KarenAnn 03:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Hollywood Reporter
Your directions were confusing and not clearly worded. I asked you to clarify but you didn't answer my question so I carried out what I thought you meant but it didn't work. Mensch's explanations were very clear, with working links indicating every step so I could follow what happened and understand.

Mensch is kind and encouraging to new people like me. He was a pillar of support during the Fidel Castro incident. He also communicates regularly before he does anything (however minor) that will impact other people working on an article, soliciting their input. (This is supposed to be a community isn't it?) You are the opposite. You make unilateral decisions without proper consultation and announce them in a jarring manner. Well, as Mel Brooks said, it's good to be the king.

The attitude on Desktop Replacement Computer was mean. I was nastily attacked and berated by RasputinAXP who wiped out my section because I followed Mensch's directions on footnotes. (He later briefly apologized after talking to Mensch.) But that's how you guys operate. The redirection business was explained to me by Mensch yesterday. Not until then did I finally understand. No one on Desktop Replacement Computer had bothered.

You characterize me as "freaking out" on The Hollywood Reporter talk page. Is that a kind description? Clearly I did not understand what was happening, as you can tell if you read my note, but why not be helpful and encouraging like Mensch and explain it to me? Instead you describe my input perjoratively.

Mensch makes it clear that he actually respects my work -- I know you find this hard to believe -- while you guys portray me as a pest. KarenAnn 13:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Karen. I did no such thing. I did not berate you and used no kind of attack against you. To wit: "KarenAnn, great work on referencing; the only thing is that you need to take a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes and see how the system is used. The cite templates you're using in the middle of paragraphs are massive and make it difficult to edit entries you've added references to. If you need any help figuring it out (it can be a pain in the butt sometimes), let me know on my Talk page. Thanks!"


 * I also offered to help you understand the referencing system. I portray you in no way to other people and in fact have gone out of my way to leave you to your editing. I appreciate that you appear to be a new user, but being civil and assuming good faith is a two way street. I would highly suggest you read up on it. RasputinAXP   c  16:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The footnote template was given to me by Mensch. (See his template comments on my talk page The template I use is exactly the same one he uses for web citations. Check out what RasputinAXP said to me on my talk page regarding this issue. And I did not say you berated me. That was RasputinAXP (or are you one and the same person). KarenAnn 16:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I made the above comment, Karen. Now I think you're just being difficult. RasputinAXP   c  16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

re: Desknote not a portmanteau?
''Hey Booyabazooka, I wanted to ask you about your recent edit to desktop replacement computer, where you said that desknote is a combination of desktop and notebook but is not a portmanteau. Could you tell me why not? Is it because it's the beginnings of both words, rather than the beginning of one and the end of another? I don't think that's actually a requirement for a portmanteau. TomTheHand 14:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)''


 * I have removed a few articles from the Portmanteaus category. Desknote is close, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't qualify.  A portmanteau is a "blend" of words; from what I've seen, it seems to mean that the words have to overlap in some clever way.  The resulting combination usually contains a syllable that was common to both of the words.  Desknote is just "desk" and "note"; there isn't really any blend there. ~ Booya Bazooka 19:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand. It was actually my first time using the word "portmanteau," so I was eager to figure out what I did wrong ;-) TomTheHand 22:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep - a portmanteau is more than a mere compound word - some letters must be removed or relocated in at least one of the parent words. BD2412  T 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but letters are removed... specifically, "-top" and "-book." TomTheHand 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding/removing Category:Cruiser classes?
Hello. Looking at a couple of the articles on my watchlist, I see that you have been removing Category:Cruiser classes from the ship class articles. Unless I am mistaken, this is the same category you added to the articles in February. Just curious to see what is up. Is this part of a project? If so, perhaps I can help. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would definitely appreciate any help or suggestions you can offer for my project. Essentially I'm trying to heavily clean up Category:Ship classes and its sub-categories.  My original goal was to move the pages on Category:Ship classes to sub-categories, such as Category:Cruiser classes.  I'm pretty much done with this, and the remaining pages would go into such small categories I don't want to bother yet.
 * Next, I want to move pages from the sub-categories into categories for the specific class of ship. For example, I categorized Bainbridge class cruiser into Category:Cruiser classes in February to move it off of Category:Ship classes.  The second stage was to make sure it was listed under Category:Bainbridge class cruisers and move it off of Category:Cruiser classes.  In this particular case, Category:Bainbridge class cruisers was already listed, so all I did was remove Category:Cruiser classes.
 * Have a look at Category:Battleship classes or Category:Aircraft carrier classes to see my eventual goal. I'm pretty much done with those.  I think it's a much easier and cleaner way to navigate than the way things were before.
 * If you have any suggestions, please let me know. If you agree with this idea and want to help out, perhaps you could ensure that specific cruiser class categories (like Category:Bainbridge class cruisers and Category:Baltimore class cruisers) are listed under Category:Cruiser classes, ensure that the class main article (Bainbridge class cruiser or Baltimore class cruiser) is listed under the class category, and then remove Category:Cruiser classes from the class main article.
 * I would also really appreciate help in finding orphans. For example, even though Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi was unique, I still felt it should be findable through Category:Aircraft carrier classes so I listed it. TomTheHand 15:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be glad to help out! Take a gander at Monmouth class cruiser and let me know if the changes I made look correct.  If you have not already done so, you might want to list it on the WikiProject Ships, as I am sure you would get heaps of help!  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help! Yes, what you've done with Monmouth class cruiser is exactly what I'm talking about.  I will list this on WikiProject Ships when I get back from lunch.  I was unaware of that project, and when I had questions before I went to WikiProject Military history where they were pretty unenthusiastic... apparently, because I was in the wrong place ;-) TomTheHand 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. As I get off work in 40 minutes (having worked 21 or the past 29 hours), hopefully I will be able to dig in and help out more tomorrow.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Recategorising ship classes
Hi, I just wanted to say good work on all the recategorisation work you are doing. It can't be fun, but someone has to do it, and I guess that someone is you :) Nice one! Emoscopes Talk 20:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean :) For me just now it is going round being anal about getting the nomenclature and marks / types correct when talking about Royal Navy radar and weapons. Emoscopes Talk 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While I cannot fault the majority of the recat, I feel I should protest at least once about the creation of single ship categories eg putting Agincourt in "Agincourt class battleships". Can you explain to me why the category was needed? GraemeLeggett 08:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ship class articles
Please stop removing the ship class articles from the ship class categories. This doesn't make any sense. A ship class is not a ship and does not belong in the category with the ships. You don't have anything like consensus on this issue. Let's talk about it over at the Project page. Jinian 16:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. Of course the ship class main article belongs in the category with the ships themselves.  You need to look at this from a perspective of "what makes it easiest to find information," not "a ship class isn't a ship, so it shouldn't be put in a category for ships." TomTheHand 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then, how about you take this to the Ship Project page, where the "ridiculous" notion is in the guidance and let's build a consensus.... Jinian 19:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I did... TomTheHand 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why can't you assume that I'm acting in good faith? I don't think we have built consensus on the idea that ship class articles don't belong in ship class categories. Take another look, please. Jinian 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not what I meant. You just told me to "take this to the Ship Project page," but you'll note that I had already replied to your post there, therefore "I believe I did [take this to the Ship Project page] ..." TomTheHand 19:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

P-1000 Ratte
Your edit to this article was inaccurate: the P-1000 was intended to use a turret identical to that used on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, with the middle gun removed and the hole presumably filled in. Note the article says it was two guns mounted in a Gneisenau turret, not "mounting a Gneisenau turret, which has two guns." Hrimfaxi 16:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see! I apologize for the incorrect edit.  Perhaps the article should make that point clear. TomTheHand 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you happen to have a source which confirms what you've said? The two sources cited in the article don't say that, and since a single gun makes up only about 7% of the weight of a Gneisenau turret it seems illogical to remove one.  Moreover, a single turret weighs about 750 metric tons, which I doubt could fit be placed onto a 1000 metric ton chassis. TomTheHand 16:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some serious doubts about whether the P-1000 would actually have weighed less than 2,000 tons in practice, starting with the tread area giving it a ground pressure one third that of an Abrams at 1kton and working outwards from there.

http://members.tripod.com/~fingolfen/superheavy/p1000.html

Which says a Graf Spee Turret; Somethingawful's research says the same. Right idea, wrong class on my part. It's still a triple with a gun removed.Hrimfaxi 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm at work, so I shouldn't look at SomethingAwful right now ;-) However, the other link is someone's personal web site on Tripod, and it does not cite sources. If SomethingAwful cites reliable sources, then it can be used, but otherwise it should not be considered a reliable source.  Also, where did this "ex-Kriegsmarine turret" come from?  Not from a Deutschland class.  I think you could get away with calling it "similar" to a Deutschland or Gneisenau turret, but without a reliable source, and with a bunch of contradictory web sites, I don't think you should call it "the same." TomTheHand 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Achtung Panzer claims that "P 1000 turret ended up at coastal defence battery (Batterie Oerlander) near Trondheim, Norway." In fact it seems that "MKB Örlandet" has Turret Caesar from German battlecruiser Gneisenau, with all three guns.  According to that site, "MKB Fjell," outside Bergen, had Turret Bruno.  Perhaps they intended to use one of these turrets in P-1000?  No source, though.  According to our Gneisenau page, the guns from Turret Anton were removed and sent to Denmark.
 * This seems to support the idea that a Gneisenau turret was to be used in P-1000, especially since the armor figures sort of match up to the cited web sites. However, we have no reliable sources, and honestly the whole idea was absurd and smacks of "paper study."  There may not have BEEN a definite plan. TomTheHand 17:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The image on that tripod site is an official drawing, however, and depicts what is definately a Kriegsmarine triple 11-inch turret on top of a tank hull with the mid gun removed. There is nothing that suggests it would have been neither a Graf Spee turret or a Gneisenau turret, however, so your compromise is somewhat flawed; if we know something is A or B, "neither" is not the NPOV way to put it. Every source I can find says Kriegsmarine 11-inch triple, most say as with Graf Spee, the rest the near-identical Gneisenau turret.

Looking into the notes, the confusion appears to arise from the fact that they would be using the more up-to-date Gneisenau 11-inchers in the turret regardless of which it was; indeed, this makes some sense since the Gneisenaus were supposed to be re-fitted with 15-inchers which would have left the Kriegsmarine with a stack of spare 11-inch guns (and turrets, for that matter) to put on P-1000s. Hrimfaxi 17:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)]


 * The image on the Tripod site is a rough sketch and does not definitely depict anything. Moreover, I'd like to see some kind of proof that it's the official drawing.  You can't say "you can't prove it's not a Graf Spee turret or a Gneisenau, therefore it is" to me.  Show me reliable sources saying that it's a Kriegsmarine 11-inch triple.  It seems to me that it's a back-of-a-napkin concept that could have been anything.
 * I'll admit that it makes most sense that it was intended to receive a turret removed from Gneisenau. However, I have seen no reliable source stating that to be the case. TomTheHand 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me reliable evidence that every single one of those websites [including Achtung Panzer! which uses the exact same sketch] is wrong to use it as a depiction of the P-1000, bearing in mind that is the most common image of the P-1000 you'd find anywhere and is as solid as the statblock for the tank, given that lists two potential engine configurations. Also a depiction based on that image (without the 128mm gun listed in the tank's stats) turned up in the videogame Strikers 1945 II, meaning that version of the P-1000 also exists in popular culture and gets itself a mention by default. You are saying I can't prove it's one or the other, so we must act as if it is neither even though the totality of evidence suggests it must be one or the other. There is zero evidence anywhere of it being anything else or an original design, just argument over it being one of two virtually identical naval turrets. Hrimfaxi 17:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Edited to "It would have carried two 280 mm guns mounted in a modified Kriegsmarine triple turret with the middle gun removed." There is absolutey no source available that does not say that; simply removing the specific ship type removes any issues there might be. Hrimfaxi 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not how things work here. I don't have to prove that your sites are unreliable.  You have to prove that they are reliable.  I'll do my best anyway.


 * 1) The first two sites contradict the third. The first two state that P-1000 would use Gneisenau guns, and their armor figures are similar to (but not identical to) the figures for a Gneisenau turret, but they do not state that a Gneisenau turret would be used.  The third says that the P-1000 would use Deutschland guns in a Deutschland-like turret, but it does not state that a Deutschland turret would be used. It just says it would have been similar, but with one fewer gun.
 * 2) The drawing that you like so much does not depict any of the other weapons that supposedly would have armed P-1000. It's just a large twin turret on a tank.  This means it should not be taken as an exact depiction of the design, but rather simply as a sketch.
 * 3) The German site, the second one listed, does not use the drawing in question. Rather, it uses a picture that does depict the full armament but cannot be considered official because it was drawn on a someone's computer.  It is most likely some amateur's conception of the design based on the statistics.
 * 4) German warships all used a similar-shaped turret. All that can be said looking at the drawing is that it is "German warship-like."
 * You have no reliable source stating that P-1000 would have used a Gneisenau or Deutschland turret, just a bunch of contradictory web sites. You're also using a tiny, simple sketch to make the judgement, which is original research.  Without a source, that speculation does not belong on the page.TomTheHand 18:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest at the outset you go AfD the entire article if you think Achtung Panzer! isn't a reliable source, since that's where the rest of the data here comes from.


 * The drawing in question is the most common illustration of the P-1000 you'll find; the lack of full armament implies it's a concept sketch, the addition of dimensions likewise, and most of all the fact that it is used almost universally to depict this tank implies that. It is in Achtung Panzer's article, SomethingAwful's article, the geocities article and a google search for P1000 will finds dozens of other examples. And again, that's also exactly what it looks like in Strikers 1945 II (I can get you a screen capture of it if you like), meaning it's how the P-1000 has been depicted in the media. The vast majority, including the creators of a published videogame, say that image is P-1000, and we are not here to argue with them. That image does not at any point contradict the other data.


 * The current statement fits 100% of available sources; everything that makes a statement on the turret says it would be (or actually was, in the case of Achtung Panzer!) a modified Kriegsmarine 11-inch triple with the middle gun removed. That they disagree on which one is irrelevant. Hrimfaxi 18:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to continue this discussion on Talk:P-1000 so others can more easily participate. TomTheHand 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well. Since you are the user suggesting the change (as it was your edit originally to remove the reference to the P-1000's turret being a warship turret) I would suggest that you cease reverting until consensus has been established, however. Edit wars don't help anyone. And with that, I must sleep. Hrimfaxi 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of consensus. We don't need consensus to decide whether we should cite reliable sources, or make guesses based on contradictory information we find on various web sites.  You must cite reliable sources; there is no alternative. TomTheHand 18:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

SS United States
Hey, take a lookit at Talk:SS United States -- mystery solved! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Escort carrier classification
Hi. I was wondering about this edit, where you added Category:World War II escort aircraft carriers of the United States to an article that was already in Category:Casablanca class aircraft carriers. The former is a subcategory of the latter. Category guidelines forbid including an article in both a category and that category's parents. Usually, articles go in the most specific category that applies, so USS Hoggatt Bay (CVE-75) should be in Category:Casablanca class aircraft carriers and not directly in Category:World War II escort aircraft carriers of the United States. Is this part of a recategorization that is in progress, or was this a mistake?--Srleffler 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Srleffler! Yes, this is part of a recategorization in progress.  On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships we've been discussing trying to fix up ship categories.  They're currently a bit of a mess.  We discussed categorization by era and the eventual consensus was that individual ships, and not ship class categories, should go into the era categories.  The reasoning behind it is that very often, not all ships in a class fit into the same set of eras.  For example, Category:Nimitz class aircraft carriers is currently under Category:Cold War aircraft carriers of the United States, but USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) is most certainly not a ship of the Cold War. For consistency, the eventual goal is to have no ship class categories in era cats, even if an era applies to every ship in the class. TomTheHand 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Battleship classes

 * Gneisenau class battlecruiser; 15:45 . . TomTheHand (Talk | contribs | block) (Category:Battleship classes per discussion on WP SHIPS)

Which discussion? (section please) --Philip Baird Shearer 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW you might be interested in this edit --Philip Baird Shearer 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We've been discussing various issues related to cleanup of ship categories, and one of our conclusions was that both ship class articles (Gneisenau class battlecruiser) and ship class categories (Category:Gneisenau class battlecruisers) should be placed under the appropriate ship type (Category:Battleship classes). I was in favor of only listing ship class categories, and placing class articles under them, so I had previously gone around deleting Category:Battleship classes from all the ship class articles.


 * The discussions can be found under Rationalizing ship categories and Ship class articles.


 * Now, you may also be referring to my listing the Gneisenau class battlecruiser article under battleship classes. My reason for this is unrelated to any discussion on WP Ships, and it is because there is significant debate as to whether they are best classified as battleships or battlecruisers.  Rather than taking sides, it's my intention to list under both, and I'll list the class under Category:Battlecruiser classes when I get there.  That way people who believe they're battleships and people who believe they're battlecruisers will both be able to find the ships exactly where the expect them. Right now I've just finished working my way through Aircraft carriers, and Battlecruisers are probably next. TomTheHand 20:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read the link you just gave me, and it seems to be part of a debate on what to name the article. I'm not interested in taking sides in the debate; my opinion is that they should be called battleships, but my intention is simply to list them under both Category:Battleship classes and Category:Battlecruiser classes and not care either way what the article is named. TomTheHand 20:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and listed them under battlecruiser classes as well, just to make it clear that I support the class being findable under either cat. TomTheHand 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"now"/"no"
Yeah, I notice that sometimes when I type quickly, I make weird semi-phonetic typos. Just a while ago, I was shocked to discover myself typing "word" instead or "would". I am not actually an illiterate, you know, I guess I just have some synapses crossed somewhere :)--Pharos 19:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha, I totally understand. I only brought it up because an anon removed the merge notices, saying this, and I thought he might have interpreted what you said as being opposed to a merge. TomTheHand 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template for Passenger ships
TTH: Would you be willing to create a template page and accompanying talk page for passenger ships, as discussed in the ship project talk page? I'm new to this game and don't trust my skills, but once a page is created I'd be happy to edit it. Cloning the existing ship page, which is oriented to warships, would be a start, and I could make the necessary changes of displacement to tonnage, complement to passenger capacity and crew, etc. Kablammo 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ack! I'm sorry, I totally forgot to respond to this.  I don't actually know anything about creating templates, and I looked at Template:Ship table, read the message at the top, and got scared right off.  I wish I could help! TomTheHand 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. I also know nothing about templates, so I thought if someone would give it a start I could contribute after.  I have spent a fair amount of time changing passenger ship tables from "displacement" to "tonnage" and as more passenger vessels are added using the naval template that error will continue.
 * One unconnected thought on naval vessels-- would it make sense to have two width dimension fields in the table ("breadth" or whatever the technical term is for hull width, and "extreme width" for the flight deck) at least for aircraft carriers? Or is that more easily accomplished simply by manually editing the template to add this information for carriers? I have done that in a few cases but there is no real consistency of method. Kablammo 14:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question... the word you're looking for is "beam." Have a look at how USS Nimitz (CVN-68) does it; I think that's a pretty good solution.  I am a little uncomfortable using "beam" to refer to flight deck width, but the article beam (nautical) doesn't seem to preclude it.  I don't think "beam" necessarily has to refer to waterline beam, but I kind of feel like it does have to refer to the hull and not the flight deck.  Still, the meaning is unambiguous so I think it's fine. TomTheHand 14:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)