User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 3

Move of Bogue class aircraft carriers
Thanks for your help in moving all of the Bogue class aircraft carriers! One was overlooked. USS St. George (CVE-17) needs to be moved to HMS Pursuer (D73). Also, I forgot to bring this one up in the move, but could you move USS Altamaha (CVE-6) to HMS Battler (D18) for the same reason? Thank you! TomTheHand 23:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! Haukur 23:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Maritime warfare task force
Tom,

Good news: has recently created the  Maritime warfare task force as part of the Military History project. Bad news: so far, it has only three members (the worst news is that one of them is me).

I think this would be a good forum for discussing of maritime warfare/naval history, exchanging ideas and establishing best practice at a more general level than the Ships project. If you are interested, can I suggest you pay a visit and, if you like what you see, sign up?

Regards, John Moore 309 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My interest is more in the ships themselves than in battles and such, but I've noticed that articles like battlecruiser have been tagged under the Maritime warfare task force's umbrella, so I'll have a look and possibly sign up. TomTheHand 16:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation for tank edits
I was on AfD today and noticed the incredibly good work you did on the P-1000 and P-1500 VfD discussions. While I don't care in the slightest about the subject material (only tanks I care about right now are the M1A1 Abrams and the Rhino from GTA:San Andreas), I thought it was wonderful that you went to the trouble of proving- to the best of your ability- that the articles deserved deleting, when there seemed to be some doubt. There are a lot of hair-trigger deletionists who frequent AfD, and seeing someone put in good work to attempt to make things better first is nearly heartbreakingly wonderful. I thought I'd pass on my appreciation, and I hope to see you around on other articles. Captainktainer * Talk 04:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Monobook tool
You seem to be getting on very well with the monobook tool for units. Have you tried using the 'dates' tab? bobblewik 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To tell the truth I have mixed feelings about the dates tab. I sort of belong to the "links to years help establish context" school of thought, so unless Wikipedia comes up with a definite policy on that I'd rather not go around removing year links.  On the other hand, once I get all of your units regexes put into AWB I plan to implement some, but not all, of the date regexes. TomTheHand 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I appreciate your response. Keep up the good work with AWB. bobblewik 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Monobook tool updated
I have made several updates to User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js. I am letting you know in case you want to use any of the revised code in your work with nbsp. Regards. bobblewik 12:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ship category proposal
I give my support to your ship category proposal and am willing to help recategorize everything if the proposal is adopted. --Spot87 00:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Freebord
The article you proposed for deletion was undeleted per objection (by me and others). Since you were the one who proposed it, I just wanted to drop you a quick note in case you'd like to voice your opinion at Articles_for_deletion/Freebord. Best regards, -- Ravn 21:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying me. I don't have any objection, since many people think it's notable. TomTheHand 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright
Question regarding copyright (if you aren't the right person to ask please point me in the right direction). If a book attributes an image to the government in the caption, is it appropriate (or even desirable) to use a scan of that book as a wiki image? These are rather old so I doubt digital versions exist. Secondly, how should the image be cropped? I presume that ideally it should be cropped to only show the image, but how would I justify the attribution if the caption is omitted? --Mmx1 14:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the best thing to do would be to post your question on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. I don't have very deep knowledge of copyright issues.  Wiarthurhu's actions were obviously wrong (scanning an image out of a copyrighted magazine, then later cropping it and filtering it and claiming it was an oil painting), so I felt comfortable commenting there, but I don't know the answer to your question. TomTheHand 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern Destroyers
''Please stop unilaterally emptying categories. Category:Modern destroyers is meant to contain destroyers currently in service, like Category:World War II destroyers. TomTheHand 15:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * I assumed it had been created by some nationalists, given that only two navies were using at all - and that those weren't exactly the best in the world. If people want to fill them up then that's great. John Smith&#39;s 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the proper procedure for deleting a category is to list it on CFD, which you did, and then let the community decide what should be done with it. You don't list it on CFD and then go around removing ships from it so it looks empty. TomTheHand 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation
RFI: recently you replaced blanks (" ") with "&nbsp". What's the purpose? Please relieve my bottomless ignorance. Folks at 137 16:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * nbsp is a non-breaking space, or a space that won't break at the end of a line. What it means is that if "40&amp;nbsp;mm" is at the end of a line, it will either appear entirely on one line or entirely on the next.  You won't have "40" on one line and "mm" on the next.  The Manual of Style (dates and numbers) states that non-breaking spaces should be used in between a value and the unit symbol, and I use them in certain other occasions as well. TomTheHand 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

World War III
I recently added unsourced information to the World War III section... It in fact is sourced, but from various sources, including Fox News, various press conferences, United Nations, etc... i cannot tell where those people get there sources, because they don't state it directly themselves. --KCMODevin

Also, I never suggested it was the start of World War III, but other people have suggested it is a continuation of a World War, (even possibly the fourth, suggesting the third has already happened) --KCMODevin


 * The term "World War III" is most often used to describe a hypothetical American-Soviet conflict which never came to pass. Some people today refer to the Cold War as WWIII, and some people refer to the War on Terrorism as such, but the term is not widely used in that fashion and those uses deserve little more than a brief mention on the page. TomTheHand 22:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet another World War is certainly possible, and would be named as World War III, If I remember correctly, it was either Oliver North or General Wesley Clark who used the term... Yes it was used to describe an American-Soviet conflict, but the current situation, if it keeps getting worse, could certainly lead to another world war. KCMODevin


 * Yes. As soon as the current situation breaks out into World War III, and reliable sources begin to refer to it as such, you can put a summary of how World War III began on the page. TomTheHand 22:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are the first words in the page itself: "World War Three is a term used to describe a hypothetical future conflict of World War II–scale or larger. Most usages of the term include the use of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons." and: "The term has carried on beyond the Cold War, and now usually refers to any potential future global conflict which would involve nuclear weapons." KCMODevin

Also, the War On Terrorism doesn't belong on that page (according to your statement) because it hasn't evolved into a World War yet. I am simply updating the War on Terrorism section. If you had read my edit, I said what I added should be shortened, especially if the sitation is resolved. KCMODevin


 * Yes, like I said, if the current conflict erupts to World War II-scale or larger, and reliable sources start calling it World War III, it will be appropriate to add to the page. The current War on Terrorism section says absolutely everything that needs to be said: "Some people say the War on Terror is WWIII, but most people say that that's ridiculous hyperbole.  Here is an example of someone referring to the War on Terror as WWIII."  We're not going to put the crisis of the week on the page and update it every time WWIII doesn't break out. TomTheHand 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a good link: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TomTheHand 22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I simply ask that you read what I wrote in it's entirety and tell me what you suggest should or shouldn't be in there... Right now, that section of the site is out of date and should be updated.

I understand where you are coming from, however, the events of this week are not small events, and even people I have spoken with, who know certain people have stated we are likely going to have to go to war with Iran. The events of this week are not going to be small. They are big events, the hate for Israel among countries like Iran, Syria and Lebanon has always been extreme, but the events of this week make that hate even worse than it already is... Thus emphasising how important the events are in the possibility of a world war.

I believe most sections in Wikipedia need to be 100% up-to-date, they shouldn't even be months behind in accuracy and date. I AM NOT predicting the future or anything... Don't assume that I am. If you read it again, you will see it isn't speculating about what will happen, instead it is talking about what has happened.

With Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, tensions in the Middle East, especially against Israel and the United States have drastically increased. Now, with the United States spread out across the world, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, it appears as though the North Koreans and Iranians have taken advantage of the situation. On July 4th 2006, North Korea launched 7 missiles including one Taeopodong-2 missile, all of which landed or exploded harmlessly over the Sea of Japan. Action was immediately taken by Japan, South Korea, and the United States to pressure North Korea to stop the launches. Japan looked to establish International Sanctions against North Korea, but China and Russia wanted Presidential statements issued to ease tensions in the region. After this launch of missiles, it was found the Taepodong-2 missile was aimed at the Hawaiian Islands, and that North Korea had 3 more missiles to test. Just a few weeks after the missile launches, Hamas kidnapped Israeli soldiers, sparking a conflict that led to an Israeli invasion into the Gaza Strip to retrieve them.

On July 12th 2006, the military wing of Hezbollah also kidnapped Israeli soldiers, retreating into Lebanon. Israel responded by pushing into Lebanon, taking out key strategic targets to prevent the soldiers from being taken further into Lebanon and to punish Hezbollah for their actions. Israel also blockaded Lebanon and has essentially cut Lebanon off from the rest of the world. Syria and Iran responded to the actions against Lebanon by threatening Israel and vowing to aid Lebanon in the crisis. Many fear this can turn in the long feared regional war in the Middle East, as the situation there is becoming more and more unstable.

The western allies/countries are hoping to defuse the situations both in Asia and in the Middle East. Many countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia are working with the United Nations, European Union and Nato to solve the problems as best as possible, even though they at times disagree on how it should be solved. Many believe this may turn into the beginning (or some, even a continuation) of a world-wide [[War].

--KCMODevin


 * The section is not out of date. It says literally everything there is to be said.  Your section duplicates content found elsewhere and its inclusion on the WWIII page implies that the current crises are or will become WWIII.  What you've written is good.  It just doesn't belong.  Reliable sources do not refer to the current crises as World War III, so the current crises do not belong on the page.  I'm not saying what you wrote is untrue.  I'm also not saying that the current situation can't erupt into World War III.  However, it hasn't, and no reliable sources say it has.  Your speculation doesn't belong on the World War III page.  I know you say it's not speculation about WWIII, but if it's not, then why is it on the WWIII page? You really need to read WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR; they'll help guide you as to what does and does not belong in the encyclopedia. TomTheHand 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

C6 image
''Hey Dave,

I noticed that you uploaded the above image with the copyright tag. I don't think that that's the correct tag; is it really from a poster advertising an event? If not, please update the tag. If so, then it is only fair use to use it on an article describing the event (and so it cannot be used on the Corvette page). TomTheHand 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * Tom,


 * I actually had trouble finding the appropriate tagging for it. It's a GM press photo, and provided the resolution isn't too high, should be fine under fair use. 'Event Poster' was the closest I could come; a brochure picture is essentially the same, and this image was used in various promotional aspects at the time of the C6 convertible's introduction.


 * -Dave Indech, 7/17


 * might be a better choice. TomTheHand 15:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

comment from AFD
Your wrote: "When a move is obstructed, as is the case here, the usual procedure is to list it on Requested moves. However, if this article is deleted, I do not think it would be appropriate to recreate it substantially intact at a new title.  The delete votes here are not "delete because it has an undescriptive title." TomTheHand 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)"
 * Please understand, it's not that I'm so attached to the current version of the essay that I want to userfy/repost it; rather, I think *some* of the information included is of value in a larger/more neutral essay on the topic of gaming the system, which is a real and demonstrable problem at Wikipedia. If GFDL applies to projectspace, then not including prior authors would be a problem, would it not? -- nae'blis (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. I don't know the answer to your question.  I do have another workaround ;-) You could possibly get in touch with User:Wiarthurhu and see about collaborating on a new essay, and then placing it at Gaming the system.  Of course, GFDL may not apply for stuff outside of the mainspace, so that's definitely something to continue to look into. TomTheHand 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know what kind of research Mmx1 did? He would not even allow listing the F-14 as an air superiority fighter. Do a google search on F-14 and air superiority, and go figure if Mmx1 was right to exclude this plane. That's the kind of stuff I was trying to stop. He constructs incorrect positions from incomplete facts. --matador300 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems a little out of the blue to me. I don't think you're responding to my suggestion that you and Nae'blis get together and write an essay called Gaming the system, using your material from Wikipedia strategy as a base.
 * Are you responding to my endorsement of Mmx1's summary on your RFC? If so, whether or not the F-14 is an air superiority fighter is not relevant and I'm not taking sides on that content dispute.  What's relevant is that your actions have violated Wikipedia policy many times. TomTheHand 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RN
There is nothing wrong with the current categorisation of Royal Navy ships. The Royal Navy covers ships for England, the Kingdom of Great Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and other system would lead to anachronistic declarations. Jooler 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that you prefer Royal Navy. Could you please tell me what you think about the issues I brought up, instead of saying "there is nothing wrong?"  How do you think things should be categorized?
 * Some ideas:


 * 1) By the native name of the navy, like United States Navy, Royal Navy, and Regia Marina. And Kriegsmarine.  And Koninklijke Marine.  And Военно Морской Флот.  And Πολεμικό Ναυτικό.
 * 2) By the native name of the navy, translated into English, like Hellenic Navy, Royal Danish Navy, Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. And National Navy.  And Military Maritime Fleet.  And Military Navy.
 * 3) By the native name for navies you think are cool, like Royal Navy, and just (nationality) (navy) for other navies, like the French Navy, the Soviet Navy, and the Belgian Navy.
 * Got a plan I can apply that's actually good? Naming after the country avoids all of these problems. TomTheHand 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can name them whatever you like I don't care. Jooler 21:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you name them after the equivalent page used for the Navy itself. No-one would be so daft as to consider moving Royal Navy to anything else. Jooler 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the above problems, or the other problems with categorization by navy: it makes things harder to find and causes big problems when a navy changes names, among other issues. I don't think we should have separate categories for all the different names Germany's navy has gone through.  Do you? TomTheHand 21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

''Spahbod, Verifiability states that "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor." I have no problem with you citing The Independent, which is reasonably reliable. LA Weekly is a free alternative weekly and is not a reliable source. You can only include information found in reliable sources here on Wikipedia. Please rewrite your caption to only cite reliable sources. TomTheHand 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * This is your last warning. If you have problem with the unreliable source as you put it listing a few countries that were not in the independetn report i suggest cuting those few countries off instead reverting the whole thing. May i remind you, you have deleted the reference to independet, you have deleted sourced material from the independet, listing US germany and other countries in my list. You also have deleted the text itself saying iraq dropped the bomb etc.
 * Now i strongly recommend you correct this as i said above, read the independent report and only delete the countries not listed, or i will report to directly to admins and you will be blocked for removing reliable source:the independent and sourced text. -- S p a h b o d  14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Verifiability also states that "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." It is not my job to fix your caption.  It is yours. TomTheHand 14:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it your job to remove the text that had nothing to do with the unreliable source? no it is not, thas clear violation of wiki rules, i suggest you put that part of text back.-- S p a h b o d  14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you're mistaken in this case. Please feel free to report me on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Administrator intervention against vandalism if you need an administrator to tell you you're wrong.  It is not my job to separate your reliable information from your unreliable information; again according to Verifiability, one of the three core content-guiding policies of Wikipedia, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources."  You cannot add information that is not from a reliable source. TomTheHand 14:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case you might as well delete everything in an article, stating not all the text is from reliable sources, and ask the authors to rewrite everything. You cannot delete sourced material, so simple is that. The only thing that was only from LA weekly was the listing of a few countries like sweden india china, all else was from independent. -- S p a h b o d  14:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, stop being stubborn and rewrite the caption using only information from The Independent. There's no need for strawmen.  I cannot comprehend why you're unwilling to do this. TomTheHand 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your the one having problem with the text. You say some of the countries should not be listed in the list, i dunno which countries you speak of, i suggest you look at the list in independent and remove the ones not listed instead of deleting everything along with them. -- S p a h b o d  15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I quoted WP:V to you. I'll quote the entire relevant portion below:


 * You are repeatedly posting a caption that is a mix of reliable and unreliable information, a violation of part 1. I am removing it in accordance with part 2.  It is your responsibility, not mine, to sort it out, according to part 3. TomTheHand 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems i am not getting through. You talk like the whole thing is from unreliable source. Most of the text you deleted was cited with reputable source. The WP:V and the quote you taken from it above, says material that is without reputable source, thus the few countries not listed in the independent. So the rule does not apply to the sourced material part of the text. -- S p a h b o d  15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You can only post what is found in reliable sources. If you post a mix of reliable and unreliable material again, it will be removed. Please stop and post only reliable material.  I'm not negotiating with you here, and I'm not going to listen to you interpret Wikipedia rules to me; you've been here all of two weeks and you do not have a proper understanding of how things work here.  I will have absolutely no problem with you adding the information that is from reliable sources but I will not rewrite your caption. TomTheHand 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: and I'm not going to listen to you interpret Wikipedia rules to me; you've been here all of two weeks and you do not have a proper understanding of how things work here. First of all it is not the amount of time that decides whether someone have proper understanding about the rules. Second that is a personal attack, and i recommend you be more carefull not to repeat such remarks. Third i am not going to listen to you interpreting the rules to me neither, it doesn't seem you have proper understand about them either, even with the fact you have been here for a while. Fourth since i am not getting through, and do not wish to continue the revert war you've started, will cut out the countries you think are not listed in the reliable source myself. But will you be so kind pointing out the countries you say are not in the independent list to me?

Furthermore i do not understand why you insist on rewriting the text. If i take out the countries not listed in the independent report, there will be just a few left, and USA will be one of them. Thus wlll be singled out, is that what you want? The point of listing the countries from different regions in the world was to not single out any of them. However since you insist on not to include the LA weekly report in the list, that wont be possible. Best regards. -- S p a h b o d  17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I will not point out the countries you should remove. Completely forget everything you read in the LA Weekly and write a caption based entirely on The Indepedent.  Yes, I want you to "single out" only the countries found in reliable sources.  Adding extra countries from unreliable sources doesn't provide balance or spread the blame, it just makes the article unreliable. TomTheHand 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote: No, I will not point out the countries you should remove. Completely forget everything you read in the LA Weekly and write a caption based entirely on The Indepedent.
 * It is not up to you to decide what i write, nor am i gonna write a new caption. Everything on the caption is backed up by the independent report, except for a few countries not listed which were added from the LA weekly, the only thing i am going to do is cut those countries off the list. And refusing to cooperate by your part is not helping. -- S p a h b o d  19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. the real source of this is Iraq's weapon declaration which was sent to UN. -- S p a h b o d  19:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, simply cut out all of the information unsupported by reliable sources. The end result is the same: do not post unreliable information.  If you want to source Iraq's weapon declaration, then do so.  Frankly, I don't understand why you think I should feel obligated to help in your research. TomTheHand 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again the end result will look exactly the same, minus the countries not listed in the independent. And i don't understand why you think being cooperative about this is heling in my reasearch. You started revert war, deleted sourced material, sent persnoal attacks, and refuse to cooperate. And now as you put it you think by cooperating to solve this issue, and prevent future revert wars, is helping me in my reasearch!
 * Once again, to prevent revert wars in the future, if you have any objections about me only cuting out the not listed countires in the independent, please come forward now before i add my new edit. -- S p a h b o d  20:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be best if you also rephrased the caption to say "corporations" instead of "countries." That is what the Independent says.  In addition, the starting year is incorrect; the Independent says aid began in 1975.  This is what I meant by forgetting everything you had written and rewriting the caption using the reliable source: it would avoid problems with these details.  Frankly I'm getting very upset at your accusations; I applied WP:V, which you had not previously read and still do not understand.  You should calm down, take input from Wikipedia veterans, and familiarize yourself further with Wikipedia policies.  I have not been uncooperative; I have said exactly what you need to do to be in compliance with Wikipedia policy and you have insisted that I am incorrect and I am obligated to rewrite your unreliable information. TomTheHand 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote: I applied WP:V, which you had not previously read and still do not understand.

I have adviced you before not to make personal attacks. From the advice i got from another user i see that i was wrong about the vandalism situation. However that is not what we were talking about at the end. My question was what other parts of the caption did you have problem with, and you refused to cooperate, to prevent a revert war. So it seems to me it is you that after so much time in wikipedia do not understand the rules. We have moved past the vandalism bit, to move forward you have to cooperate to prevent future revert wars. It means discuss with me what other parts you think is from the unreliable source. However now it seems you finally chosen to cooperate and are saying that it started 1975 and it should say corporations instead of countries. i suggest you read the independent again. However i am working on to improve that caption right now from other sources, so let's leave things as they are for now. -- S p a h b o d  14:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the last time I'm going to speak to you. I'm going to summarize.  If you post captions based on reliable sources, they will improve the article.  If you post captions based on unreliable sources, I will remove the captions in their entirety.  That's it.  That's all there is to it.  Goodbye. TomTheHand 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was gonna make my last post the last one, but since you insist. Let me make it clear, you were right about the LA weekly not being reliable thus could delete the caption. But if you touch one word from a reliable source like the Independent, i will revert and report, so simple is that. -- S p a h b o d  16:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)