User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 8

Re: Will this infobox proposal work?
''Kirill, could you look at my proposed ship infobox at User:TomTheHand/test and tell me if the method used will work or break in the future? From what I understand about what you said, if Brion turns on a particular extension, it will no longer be possible to open a table in one template and close it in another. However, can you open a table, use some templates to define the rows, then close the table? Your proposal on WP:SHIPS seems to indicate that you can. Though you're having the editor make one template call, behind the scenes that template is opening a table, filling it with rows using other templates, and then closing the table.''

''I know that you favor a different approach, but I think it would be better to leave backwards compatibility behind if the solution is easier to use. "Easier to use" is subjective, certainly, and maybe my easy-to-use proposal is a pain in the butt to someone else, but nobody's really spoken up about it. TomTheHand 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)''


 * I think doing it that way will work; admittedly, I don't quite recall whether Brion said anything about that specific case. In any case, it should be fairly easy to fix the code if it does break, as most of the content will be templatized internally to the table. Kirill Lokshin 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! TomTheHand 18:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
''To link to categories, use a standard Wikilink with a : after the opening brackets. For example, to link to Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships, type Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships. This also works for images; to link to Image:Flag of the United States.svg, type Image:Flag of the United States.svg. TomTheHand 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)''


 * Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships Basically is all you need to do is lead with the :  OK, that works much better. --71Demon 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories|Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships

I took it a little further. --71Demon 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

An update for you
You wrote above that the items below would clear me:
 * Requests for comment/Mattisse
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse

Well, this is how things stand today:
 * Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence
 * Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop

Lo and behold! It all revolves around me being a sockpuppet of Timmy12. Doesn't this inspire awe? I must be a really important person that all these people are willing to waste their time over me - getting to be six months now! (This is for your amazement only -- not expecting you to do anything.) Sincerely, Mattisse 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Help Desk question
Hi there. Just a brief note to let you know that I think I've managed to answer your Help Desk question here. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reported your repeated vandlism on USS Barbour COunty
You have been told and told where that photo is from the USN. You completely ignor that little fact constantly. --71Demon 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, please listen to me: "From the USN" is not enough information. You need to include a link to the Navy web site where you found the image, or information about the book it was scanned from, or other information that says exactly where the image came from.  The image needs to have information that would allow another person to find it as well, if they were so inclined. TomTheHand 23:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC, which will show you all of the other images that use PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC. You can click on them to get a good idea of what needs to be added to the image of USS Barbour County. TomTheHand 23:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling me a vandal is a personal attack.
Please refrain from personal attacks, such as calling me vandal; they are against Wikipedia policy, but keep in mind when you keep reverting someones proper edit, that is vandilsm. I have reported you to an admin. The photo is properly marked that it is public domain. --71Demon 23:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not call you "vandal." I said that I would regard continued removal of legitimate copyright tags, without fixing the copyright problem, as vandalism, and I would respond accordingly, with measures up to and including blocking you from editing Wikipedia.  I have adequately explained, in a number of locations, what additional information you need to put on your images so that they can remain on Wikipedia; do not respond to this by simply saying "I already told you, they're from the Navy!"  You must provide the requested information if you want to use the images in question. TomTheHand 17:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops
''I believe you placed your vote in the wrong place here: Stub_types_for_deletion I think you may have intended your "Keep" vote at the one directly above. TomTheHand 14:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)''


 * Yes, you're right, so I did. Pesky edit conflicts...  Thanks for pointing that out.  Alai 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

deck cannon what size is it?
A Deck cannon can not be the same size 140mm? It can not be a 50 cal. machine gun.Metric or inches?john toth 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Naval weapons use caliber as a measurement of length. TomTheHand 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

they use both metric and standard measurement.
Naval Measurements use both metric and sae.john toth 23:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, but in this case, caliber is neither a metric nor an SAE measurement, but the ratio of the bore diameter to the barrel length. TomTheHand 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

deck cannon is not 50 cal.
A Deck cannon doesn't equal 50 cal. Metric size is 140mmjohn toth 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

50cal.
50 cal. is a machine gun size. not a deck cannon.john toth 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For the final time, when describing a large gun, such as a naval or tank cannon, "caliber" refers to the ratio of the bore diameter to the barrel length. It is not the diameter of the bullet or barrel. It is neither a metric nor an SAE measurement.  In this case, the gun fires a shell 140 mm in diameter, and the barrel is 140 mm × 50 (calibers) = 7000 mm, or 7 m, long.


 * I am aware that when talking about small arms, "caliber" means the diameter of the bullet, and a .50 caliber machine gun is a machine gun which fires bullets that are 0.50 inches in diameter. "Caliber" means something different when talking about large guns.


 * The image to the right illustrates what the article means by "caliber". TomTheHand 23:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if you'd respond and let me know if you understand or have further questions about what "caliber" means. Once you understand, I'll change the article back. TomTheHand 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, but this may be a lost cause; if he won't listen, WP:AN/3RR may be a suitable clue-stick to apply. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

THERE IS A DECK CANNON ON I-400
READ ABOUT I-400 SEE THE PHOTO OF DECK CANNON WHERE TWO SEAMEN LOOKING AT THE DECK CANNON. WHAT SIZE IN DIA. OF DECK CANNON.john toth 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 140mm (~5.5 in), just as the article says. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, yes, the barrel diameter is 140 mm. When talking about large guns, though, caliber is not barrel diameter.  It's barrel length.  A 140 mm, 50 caliber naval cannon has a barrel 140 mm in diameter.  The "50 caliber" means that the barrel is 50 times longer than the diameter, so it's 140 × 50 = 7,000 mm long. TomTheHand 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

who was right on thi s sujbect me or you . do not threaten me ?
check article and look at photos of deck cannon not machine gun on deck of i-400 140mm is equal to 5.51 in inches. correct i'm not a vandal and i do not vandalize articles. john toth 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Toth, you would do well to look at the NavWeaps.com page on the relevent gun; . Quite apart from the fact that the information on the page is well-sourced, it also shows a photograph of the gun on I400 - will that make you consider that you may be incorrect?  --Harlsbottom 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing with you about the diameter of the gun's barrel. It is 140 mm, which is 5.51 in.  The issue here is that you do not know what "caliber" means, and I'm having difficulty communicating the concept to you.  I've tried my best, I'd be happy to answer any questions for you, but if you continue to remove information from the article, I will block you from editing. TomTheHand 03:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Monique Alexander
Monique Alexander was going to dance at the SPEAMINTRHINO on Feb 8th ,2007. Web site also says schedule can change,spearmintrhino.com also called SPEARMINTRHINO Downtown LA phone number (213)629-9213. Monique had to reschedule that date. thank you, JRMAN.john toth 03:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All information that you add to an article must be verifiable. That means that whenever you add something to an article, you must also add a source to show where the information came from. TomTheHand 03:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Monique Alexander
SOURCE WAS STRIP LAS VEGAS MAGAZINE, WHICH HAS LINKS TO SPEARMINTRHINO WHICH HAS SCHEDULE FOR FEATURE DANCERS.AT THERE CLUBS IT WAS ON THERE WEB SITE. SPEARMINTRHINO.COM AND CALLED SPEARMINTRHINO AT (213)629-9213. TO CONFIRM.SCHEDULE DID CHANGE THANK YOU, JRMANjohn toth 03:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, hey, great. In the future, whenever you add information to an article, add the source too. TomTheHand 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)