User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 5

Adminship
Hello TomTheHand, I was wondering if you are interested in adminship. I have periodically been checking up on you (I don't know if you remember this, but that is why I know you), and I think you are ready. If you are interested, let me know, and I will nominate you. Happy editing! Prodego talk  17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Prodego! Sure, I remember you.  Sorry I haven't picked a signature yet!  I just don't have an eye for such things, so I'm pretty much content with the default text.  I am interested in adminship, so if you think it's a good idea and I'd have a decent shot at it then I would be grateful for your nomination. TomTheHand 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK! The one thing some people might pick up on (and the reason I have waited) is that you haven't made many talk/Wikipedia namespace edits, but as long as you haven't gotten into any major disputes, you should be fine. Prodego  talk  17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I feel like I've had my share of disputes. Some of them are on this talk page, though they were with sock puppets of banned users who were back at their old games.  Still, I haven't gotten into any really nasty, drawn-out edit wars, and I think for the most part my disputes were resolved with decent compromise. TomTheHand 17:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 Prodego would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Prodego to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.


 * I didn't notice you haven't already, but you should set an email address, it is considered a de facto requirement for admins (Since it is often the only way for a blocked user to contact you). I recommend Gmail, but I have not gotten any invites to give (despite my using the service since I became a sysop), so you would have to set it up using a cell phone. See  Prodego  talk  22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that; I had an e-mail address set but I hadn't checked "Enable e-mail from other users." It should be fine now. TomTheHand 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, good. I sent you a message (via e-mail). Prodego  talk  23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't received the e-mail yet, which is a little worrying. It's not in my junk folder either, so perhaps Hotmail deletes it outright.  Does the mail come from a Wikipedia domain?  If so, which domain exactly?  Perhaps I can whitelist it. TomTheHand 23:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It comes from mail.wikimedia.org I believe. Prodego  talk  23:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've whitelisted a few Wikipedia/Wikimedia domains. I'm sorry for asking you to help me troubleshoot, but would you mind trying to e-mail me again?  If this doesn't work, I'll try an alternate address.  I assume my e-mail address is hidden from people who e-mail me through Wikipedia? TomTheHand 23:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll send another e-mail right away. In answer to your other question, it hides the address when you recieve, but not when you send an email. Prodego  talk  23:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there seems to be some kind of problem. I'll change the e-mail address to my work address and confirm it, but it'll be morning before it's up and running.  Could I talk to you about this tomorrow and ask you to send one more (hopefully final) e-mail, once I have everything set up? TomTheHand 23:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, no problem. (Sorry about the delay, I was unavoidably detained) You way want to use Gmail, it has several advantages, including hiding your IP address when you send mail. However, you would need to set it up using a cell phone, since I have no invatations. Prodego  talk  00:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to intrude, but I have a large number of gmail invites, so if you want one, just zing me an email and I'll send the invite.--Bobblehead 00:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My girlfriend has Gmail invites, so I can ask her if I decide to go down that path, but I'd prefer to not have another e-mail address to check. I'll give it some thought. TomTheHand 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotta love it when Wikipedia crosses wires. Since you've got some invites available. Moot point.;) --Bobblehead 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha. Thanks for noticing that I was in need! TomTheHand 00:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, for now I've got it set up with my work e-mail address. I may do a Gmail address this weekend, but for now, could someone try e-mailing me? TomTheHand 13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Prodego! It worked. TomTheHand 14:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good, I am glad that worked! Now I will resend my first e-mail. (Of course I will have to retype it, so expect a wait). Prodego  talk  14:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I sent the message a while ago, have you still not received it? Prodego talk  14:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I did receive it, but I've been a little busy. You bring up an important point about my work e-mail being related to my name, and so I will register a Gmail account this weekend.  I'll also register on your test wiki this weekend and familiarize myself with the sysop tools.  Again, thanks!  You've helped me out a lot. TomTheHand 14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not yet registered the test account, are you going to soon? If you are not going to, please let me know, so I don't need to keep checking whether you have created an account or not. Thanks, Prodego  talk  13:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Test account sysop'd. Please e-mail me when you start using the test account. Prodego talk  23:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

USS Nashville (LPD-13)
Greetings, I see you used AWB to clean up Nashville, and presumably other vessels. I am curious as to the reason the non-breaking space was used instead of a simple space for many of the side-bar figures. That extra code muddies the edit page considerably, and doesn't really add anything. Thanks. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 19:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style (dates and numbers) states in its units of measurement section:
 * Put a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg" not "25kg". Preferably, use &amp;nbsp; for the space (25&amp;nbsp;kg</tt>) so that it does not break lines.
 * Check out the article on non-breaking spaces for a little more information on them. TomTheHand 19:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for that, I know about the HTML character itself (and use it often on my websites), but wasn't aware of its particular use in Wiki. Rather curious...  --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:10px;">T • @ • C 20:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA
Hey, Tom. Sorry that my one participation in your RFA was crossing out a support vote from an impersonator. I normally don't participate in RFAs where consensus is already so clear, as it is in your case, since I usually prefer to do some digging about the candidate. It seems from what others are saying about you that you will be an excellent administrator, if (when) your RFA succeeds. I wish you the best.--Kchase T 16:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Kchase, and good work keeping an eye out for impersonators. It's so odd that someone would create an impersonator account and one of their five edits would be a support vote for me.  TomTheHand 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Be careful out there!
I have recently been involved in a short dispute with Mattisse about the AppleSearch article. He wrote to you, and several other (soon to be?) admins, asking for "help". You appear to be the only one to have responded.

My reason for writing is that you appear to have agreed to help him after being misled as to the nature of the original dispute. His first post here states "the author insists that because it is/was an Apple Computer product he doesn't have to have reference citations". Not only is this completely untrue, but this is not even the nature of the dispute. He failed to mention the other three tags he added, any one of which seemed innappropriate, none of which were explained. I removed them en-mass, feeling they were all inappropriate (formal language?!). He then re-framed the dispute as me "refusing" to add references, and then added a PROD tag.

You responded in a fairly neutral way, but noted "even if the author refuses to perform the inline citations himself". This, of course, requires it to be true in the first place, so apparently we're already off to a bad start. Mattisse wrote back, this time claiming "his refusal to use citations is absolute". That's bad enough, being untrue, but this time you noted "Well, I do think his refusal is a little odd". *sigh*

May I be so bold as to suggest you do a little more poking about on both sides of the issue before falling for this sort of thing? Mattisse's entire contribution to the wiki has been to stamp articles -- tens or hundreds of them -- with PROD notices, AfD's and various drive-by tags. Don't believe me, just go here:. If you're worried about my own contributions, my 11,000+ edit, 1,000+ creation history is here: []

Please take the time to check out both sides of a dispute in the future. It's an important part of being an admin. Yes, I'm an admin.

Maury 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maury, Mattisse did not contact me out of the blue asking for "help." I noticed the dispute on AppleSearch because I had been involved in a dispute with Mattisse's previous user name in the past and so I had Mattisse's talk page on my watchlist.  I noticed your post "Uggg" and wanted to investigate further.  I feel that Mattisse is overzealous with tagging, and you'll notice that I removed the prod tag that was put on the page.  You had commented here that you contested the tagging, but the proper procedure when you contest a prod tag is to simply remove it.
 * I have been in no way misled as to the nature of the dispute. I was involved with the issue before Mattisse left a message on my talk page, and I got involved because I felt Mattisse was acting somewhat inappropriately.  However, I also noticed that you have refused to use inline citations.  You've simply put a list of references at the bottom.
 * Some of Mattisse's tagging was, I felt, inappropriate, but the article would benefit from inline citations; this has been my stance from the beginning and I stand by it. I notice that you have still not added inline citations, and so I also stand by my comments that you have refused to do so, and that that refusal strikes me as odd.  You have the sources right there, and you obviously care about the subject.  Do you need help?  I would be happy to teach you or guide you to the right place to learn about proper Wikipedia citations (WP:CITE).
 * I would appreciate it if you did not accuse me of poking my nose into issues that I don't understand. I am quite familiar with both sides of this dispute.  I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, but in spite of your 11,000 edits you are not perfect.  Mattisse has taken on the mission of finding articles that are uncited, unwikified, or problematic in some other way, and although it is being pursued in a fashion that is sometimes, as I said, overzealous, I appreciate that mission. TomTheHand 03:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A fine goal, but the ends do not justify the means. It's not the tagging I'm complaining about, but the method to the maddness.
 * Yesterday Mattisse PRODed every article linked to from single root, simply because they came from that root. No explaination was given for any of these edits. In another case Mattisse inserted a "cite needed" at the end of every single paragraph of an article. Again, no comments were left.
 * There is a pattern of behaviour here. It starts with drive-by tagging. When an editor removes the tags and asks for explaination, the article is immediately PRODed. If the PROD is removed, CITEs are inserted at random, or a AfD is put in the PRODs place. I consider this behaviour to be counterproductive. It appears you agree, to some extent at least. Defending bad behaviour seems very questionable to me.
 * However, I also noticed that you have refused to use inline citations.
 * Now you're claiming this too? Please, point out where I have ever refused to use inline citations.
 * You quote me the CITE, but it clearly disagrees with your claims above. Let me quote the appropriate section:
 * "If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the citation style used should be that of the first major contributor."
 * If you disagree with this, please outline your problems in the article's talk pages. And be specific. I have been asking for this all along! Getting a clear description of the problem before attempting to fix it cannot possibly be construed as "refusing" under any possible string of logic.
 * Maury 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never said that I agreed entirely with the way Mattisse is doing this. I think the mission is important, and the intentions are good, but you'll note above that I agree that I do not fully agree with the means.  However, any issues you have with Mattisse should be taken up elsewhere; my involvement is entirely based around AppleSearch's need for citations.
 * I cannot point out where you have refused to use inline citations, but since this discussion has been going on for a week and a half, and you still have not added them, I believe your refusal is implied. If you plan to add them tomorrow, or next week, then I apologize for my assumption.
 * Your quote isn't quite relevant, since you have not cited at all. You have listed references at the bottom, which is not the same thing.  If you were using embedded HTML links and I were insisting that you must switch to Harvard referencing instead, then you'd have a point.
 * Please have a look at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which is a well-cited article. Check out the text after the introduction section, or look at the infobox.  The little numbers by various facts, which link to lines in the references section, are citations.  Specifically, they are done in the footnote style, but you can use one of the other citation methods on WP:CITE if you like; as your quote states, it's up to you.  Note that nowhere on WP:CITE will you find the "list a bunch of links at the bottom of the page" method, because that is not citation.  If you need help, please let me know. TomTheHand 15:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "I cannot point out where you have refused to use inline citations, but since this discussion has been going on for a week and a half, and you still have not added them, I believe your refusal is implied."
 * So much for assuming good faith. Maury 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the snarky response. So are you planning to add inline citations?  Everything you've said so far implies to me that you think your article either doesn't require them or already has them, which shows a misunderstanding of WP:CITE. TomTheHand 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And again, you display the assumption of bad faith. I was not trying to be "snarky" (or "clever", or anything else for that matter), this was a simple statement of fact. You stated, clearly, that you believed that "your refusal is implied". There are any number reasons I might not have added them so far, but the one you decided to assume requires bad faith. And what's particularily odd is that it's a lack of action you're complaining about. Is this is all the evidence you require to assume the worst from a long-time wiki contributer?
 * Further, your claim that you have been asking "for a week and a half" is clearly and simply wrong. Right here on this web page you can see a message to Mattisse that you have already concluded I am "refusing" to add cites, a message dated the 11th. It was posted only a few hours after I wrote the article in the first place! So not only are you apparently assuming the worst, you're doing it at a time (I'm not good with GMT, but it seems it was when I was on my bike) when I could not possibly be editing. Do you think your conclusion was fair?
 * My honor has been questioned by two people now, both of whom have made no indication so far they even understand my feelings on this issue. In retrospect, I can't believe I allowed myself to be dragged so far into the mud. I guess I should keep my own concil. Maury 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not assume bad faith; I believe you thought you were in the right in not adding inline citations. However, you've been told repeatedly that they are needed, by several people, and you continue to avoid the issue even now.  You have never said "I'll be adding them when I get time."  Everything you've said was along the lines of "The article is fine" or "Be more specific about what you feel needs to be corrected."  Your article has no inline citations; it cannot be more specific than this.  Will you be adding them, or would you rather challenge me to a duel to avenge your honor? TomTheHand 16:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War
Actually, I've been discussing these same changes for a while without getting a meaningful response that addresses the relevant points. Basically, there are now four parts which people have objected to me removing.


 * The first part is an irrelevant (and politically motivated) quote from Ted Koppel which neither add facts about U.S. involvement nor contradicts facts presented.


 * The second is the one about Reagan "allowing" U.S. military equipment to be sold to Iraq via Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait which I proved to be lying because all of the Egyptian equipment exported was Soviet or French made and Kuwait and Saudi didn't give Iraq any major conventional weapons at all.


 * The third part is a three para reference to U.S. exports of material used in Iraq's biological warfare program. Since Iraq did not use BW during the war, I did not think it was relevant to detail where all of its stuff for BW came from. Furthermore, if it was BW it does not belong in the "Chemical Weapons" section in the first place.


 * The fourth is an irrelevant para about media coverage of "Iraq gate" that belongs elsewhere.

If you can think of an appropriate compromise yourself, it would be greatly appreciated. CJK 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
You're now an admin, so use the tools to make this a better place. Use the new tools conservatively, especially at first and re-read the relevant policies before taking action. After getting the hang of it, dig in and help out with the backlogs. Have fun, and again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 18:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, congrats. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  18:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done on your adminship! Please ask if you need any assistance. <font style="color:#fff;background:#808;"> (aeropagitica)  <font style="color:#808;background:#fff;">  (talk)   08:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Support your edits
You have twice reverted my edits. One more and we go to arbitration, which I have little interest in.

In your last revert you noted in the edit tag "The book makes no comparison between Rosebud and modern news aggregators. As you said, it was published in 1993, so that would be impossible". However the cite tag in question is not attached to the claim that you quote, but to the claim that it was released in 1991. The book is evidence that the date is correct.

Please explain your revert.

Maury 22:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The citation tag is added to the sentence "Even modern news aggregators generally don't offer the display quality or ease of use of Rosebud, which dates to around 1991." It was added because the sentence makes a pretty serious claim: modern news aggregators aren't as good as Rosebud.  A claim like that requires citation. TomTheHand 22:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom, would you mind helping Maury and I find references for the AppleSearch article? I am sure once those are found this will all clear up. Thanks, Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am absolutely not interested. I'm incredibly upset by Maury's attitude, his actions, and things he's said to me and about me (and to and about Mattisse as well).  I'm equally uninterested in Maury's response to this statement, and I intend to stick to WP:V and WP:CITE until his article is properly cited. TomTheHand 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He does point out that King George V class battleship (1939), which you added to, has no references at all. Could you fix that? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because I'm fairly busy off-wiki this week (you'll note that I haven't done any real editing since last Friday) and I consider his request to be an example of WP:POINT. Before I am accused of the same, I'd like to reemphasize that I came into the issue because I felt that much of Mattisse's tagging was out of line.  However, adding cite tags is an entirely reasonable thing to do to an article with no citations whatsoever, and cite tags should not be removed without citing sources.  I would not object to someone adding cite tags to the KGV article, assuming they were not doing so as part of some sort of tit-for-tat campaign aimed at me. TomTheHand 02:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are probably right. However, I believe AppleSearch is now acceptable? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  12:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that AppleSearch is in much better shape. I would prefer that the remaining fact tags remain until the statements in question are cited, so that readers can see that they have not been verified.  The fact tag on the third paragraph is fairly unimportant but the two fact tags in the first paragraph are claims that need to be cited. TomTheHand 13:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  13:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

w00t
Congrats on being granted SysOp rights. Yank sox  04:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

GIen's RfA: Thank you!
'''PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)'''</FONT>

And CONGRATS TOO MATE! - GI e n 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Socks
Congratulations on your adminship. Now you can just block Copperchair's socks on sight and log them down on the arbitration case! Regards and congrats, Iola <b style="color:#50C878;">k</b> ana • T  11:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships archived
The page had gotten so long, I archived the old sections. Since they were mostly discussions of categorization, you might want to expand that section on the project page, WikiProject Ships. —wwoods 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for defending me!
I saw your message and his at the same time as the Green Map guy's so I didn't have to go through any agony! Thanks! I'll just stay out of it. And congraduations on becoming an admin! Mattisse(talk) 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Green map 'needs citations' flag (copying this to your page (remove if you want)
And what, praytell, needs citation exactly? From an outside source no less, since links to GMS seem no have no value to you. The article makes no outrageous claims regarding efficacy or what have you, but instead it simply describes the framework. The boilerplate stamp is therefore rather insulting. The only things which I could see one perhaps reasonably objecting to are the uncited reference for work on a third version of the icons, which is not widely known, or trademark preference. I flirted with the idea of referencing the v3 project website however, it is not intended for public consumption. Likewise, trademark matters are all discussed on private pages or via personal correspondence. Backing up your judgements with comments on discussion pages would be appreciated. --belg4mit


 * Belg4mit, according to WP:V, every article in Wikipedia should cite "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Green Map System home page is decidedly not a third-party source. TomTheHand 15:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the prompt reply, but this really doesn't answer my question... only reiterates the WP dogma (which IME stifles user contribution by increasing the barriers to entry &#091;activation energy&#093;). With such a small entity there has been very little written about them in depth, which I believe is why someone created the original article with copy & paste from the GMS website in the first place. While I created the Cambridge Green Map, and have therefore entered into a licensing agreement with GMS, I am in no way beholden; witness insistence on non-copy like text. I have dug up references regarding trademark/greenwash however Cite_sources seems to make no provision for citing personal communication or list traffic. --Belg4mit 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Personal communication and list traffic are not reliable sources. TomTheHand 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This particular list traffic would seem to be, when viewed within context i.e; it is a version of the statement (indeed the original, from the horse's mouth) included in the article. Similarly, see Self-published sources in articles about themselves at your own reference. Again though, you continue to reiterate dogma (without actually checking it's applicability) and not give specific examples. --Belg4mit 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So you can followup if you so choose. Mattisse(talk) 10:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair Returns?
It seems as though he has returned as this IP, which is from the same location as his old one. His edits are the same, he linked to a page he created as his last sock puppet: ~ Rangeley  ( talk ) 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)