This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives
January 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – June 2007 June 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – November 2007 November 2007 – December 2007 December 2007 – January 2007

Thanks for resolving the dfu on [1], [2], [3], [4]. I was not sure after an editor dfued them all during an edit conflict as to whether they were legit or not. Your action means that I can keep adding such pictures to llustrate an articles. Taprobanus 21:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the background behind the gigantic DFU issue, which affected thousands of images:

1. 1. The images had DFU tags placed on them on May 31 or June 1. These DFU tags requested that an editor add a fair use rationale, but the editor should not remove the DFU tag; an administrator would review the rationale and decide if the rationale is adequate.
   2. Many images had fair use rationales added.
   3. The DFU tag was edited on June 5 to say that if you added a rationale, you should remove the DFU tag. Editors who added fair use rationales before this date had no way of knowing of the change.
   4. Naconkantari ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted all images that had DFU tags from May 31 or June 1 without any kind of review.

I'm trying to review the deletions and restore the ones that had fair use rationales added. I am not passing judgement on the fair use rationales themselves, but rather trying to retroactively apply the change in DFU use: if a rationale is added, the DFU tag should get removed and the image shouldn't be speedily deleted.

Someone could very well still decide that the fair use rationale isn't adequate and work to have the image deleted. I'm not too interested in taking part in that on either side of the debate, but just trying to restore images that were deleted without review so that they can go through the proper process for such things.

I'm glad to hear that the work is appreciated. TomTheHand 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I was surfing around the internet looking for the crush depth for the Balao and came upon a few posts on submarine enthusiast forums which points out the crush depth to be around 900 ft or more. The source for their posts seems to be from books on U.S. WW2 submarines.

Here are two that I've just grabbed from uboat.net and subsims.com:

http://www.uboat.net/forums/read.php?20,64633,64663,quote=1

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109972 (12th post)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by V.C. Sniper ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 21 June 2007

In the latter, I see comments that,

"According to Padfield one of the best-kept secrets of the war was that the Balao pioneered the use of STS (armor) for the pressure hull. Another source (which I will supply this afternoon) states that they estimated the Balao and Tench classes would be good to 900 feet. No official verification, though."

and for the Tench class,

• Test Depth: 400 ft (122 m)

• Max Depth reported: 640 ft (384 m)"

The "900 ft" figure doesn't seem very well sourced. Without that, I don't think we can say "Rated crush depth" (emph added). And I doubt a metric conversion more precise than "270 m" would be justified. Also, it doesn't really fit in the infobox, which doesn't have a line for "crush depth".

I suggest taking the claim out of the infobox, and maybe adding something to the Balao- and/or Tench-class pages about the extreme depths submarines are known to have reached and survived.

—wwoods 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied to V.C. Sniper on his talk page. Ordinarily if someone responds on my talk page I will continue the conversation here, but I wanted to make sure Sniper got my response. TomTheHand 23:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that a requirement for an RfC is an attempt (documatable by diffs) to resolve the issues with the user involved directly and informally. Such an attempt should be sincere, not pro forma. Have you posted on User talk:Naconkantari asking him to change his behviour in regard to deletions? (I have) If you ahve not done so, i urge you to do so. if he responds and engages on the topic, well and good. if he ignores your msg, that is another matter. In case you haven't read it recently I suiggest reviewing Dispute Resolution before we start an RfC, lest it get hung up on details. DES ^(talk) 18:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have attempted to resolve the issues with Naconkantari. When I spoke with him about the blocks, he essentially said that that was just the way he does things. When I attempted to contact him several times about his failure to attempt to undelete the images he mistakenly deleted, he ignored me. I can document this with diffs for the RfC. I have considered an RfC for some time, but I was unsure if anyone else would support one. When I noticed that you were interested in initiating one I contacted you immediately. TomTheHand 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: I was not personally involved in the incident where Naconkantari repeatedly deleted the user pages of sockpuppets, but many users did attempt to resolve the issue with him and I can provide diffs of those. TomTheHand 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All that will help. I am going to start drafting an RfC. I will not file it until Naconkantari has either responded to my latest msgs on his talk page, or it has become clear that he will not respond. DES ^(talk) 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have started drafting -- see User:DESiegel/RFC Draft/Naconkantari. The RfC is not yet ready to post. Feel free to add diffs or reasons for the dispute. Please do not move this out of my userspace, however. I WILL be doign more on this, probably yet tonight (I live in the US eastern (UTC-5) timezone.) If yoiu think anythign I have written is incorrect or ill advaised, please drop me a note. DES ^(talk) 01:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will post to the RFC over the course of the next day. Please let me know before you're ready to post it, to make sure that I'm done. TomTheHand 12:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate what you have been doing in response to the Naconkatari deletions. I was wondering if you could look at what has recently happened with orphaned fairuse images being deleted 5 days earlier than the templates and categories said they would be. See my comments on User talk:^demon, WT:CSD#Orphaned images, and WP:ANI#Orphaned image being deleted after 48 hours instead of 7 days, but my points don't seem to be getting across to anyone there. I am hoping you can look at this, and if you can tell me that there was nothing improper about those deletions, I will not pursue this matter any further. DHowell 05:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me; however, this time around things just didn't work out. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if plot and character information and screencaps from the leak of the pilot for The Sarah Connor Chronicles should be included in the article. I know you helped out on the Terminator (character) article a while back, and that's why I ask you. Is there a policy concerning leaked information? I'd appreciate your input on the article talk page ColdFusion650 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

		Thank you
		Thank you for your support of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. — TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I have just completed my first new article, Brown Shipbuilding, and as it's related to WP:Ships, I'd like you to review it. I am pretty confident the terminology is accurate, but I'd especially like to know if the stub, categories, etc are appropriate. I'd also like your advice concerning appropriate wikiprojects - WikiProject Military history and Houston, perhaps? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Maralia 21:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for this late response. I've been busy "in real life." The article looks very good. It looks like it may in fact be a bit long to call a stub; it seems short but fairly complete. It'd be great to find a photograph. I searched navsource.org [5] and tried to find a photograph of a ship under construction at Brown Shipbuilding, but I didn't turn up anything. They do have a number of photographs of recently completed ships "off Brown Shipbuilding Co.", but I don't know how close we're talking about. Is it visible in the background, or twenty miles away? For example, in this photograph [6], if that's Brown Shipbuilding right behind the LSM, it might be a good picture to try to add, but if it's just some random factory near Houston then I don't know how helpful the picture is. If we can't find a photo of Brown Shipbuilding, maybe a photo of USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) would be a good substitute. TomTheHand 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I didn't have any luck finding a picture. I agree the Samuel B. Roberts would be better than nothing - will dig around a bit more before I give up and resort to that. In the meantime since that article, I've written two more -- USS Moonstone (PYc-9) and USS Koka (AT-31). I promise I won't ask you to personally review everything I write, but these are my first ship articles, so I'd appreciate knowing if I'm on the right track. Thanks again for your help. Maralia 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

These also look good. I have a few suggestions:

1. WP:SHIPS likes to use template-based infoboxes instead of copying and pasting a table into the article. Check out {{ Infobox Ship Example}} for the latest, most versatile one, and {{ Infobox Ship}} for a slightly older one that is still very popular. These templates allow formatting to be the same across all ship articles. If you have any questions about using them, I can definitely help you out.
2. We have another template, {{ USN flag}}, which will provide you with the right ensign (the correct number of stars on the flag) depending on the date. If you click on the link you can read about how to use it.
3. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Categorization for categorization guidelines. For USS Moonstone, I would suggest adding Category:World War II patrol vessels of the United States. I'd also like to suggest using country categories (as opposed to navy categories): Category:Patrol vessels of the United States and Category:Tugs of the United States (which will have to be created). Categorizing by country makes it easier to navigate because it's not necessary to know the name of the navy. For the US, it's obvious, for Greece, the name is less well-known to folks who aren't navy buffs.
4. I would create red links to articles that definitely need to be created. For example, on USS Koka, I'd link to Bagaduce class tug. That will make it easier for people to see what needs to be created, and when the class article is eventually written it will already be linked to by its members.

I'd be happy to give you advice on other articles. TomTheHand 20:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, you asked for it: next up is City of Washington (ship). This one nearly gave me a stroke when it came to categorization - it's a steamship AND a brig, merchant AND passenger, Victorian Era AND Spanish American War, privately owned AND briefly an Army transport...ugh. I am also less confident about the language in this one. Thanks for the advice on the previous two articles - I've read up on the infobox and flag templates and categorization guidelines, and applied them to those articles (at least I thought I had, but i see a redlink, so I have a category to fix still). I just located the template for a civilian ship infobox, so I'll add that to City of Washington shortly. Appreciate your taking the time to look it over. Maralia 05:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I've put a lot of effort into creating consistent categorization guidelines for military vessels because that's where my interest lies, but I haven't tried to fix up civilian stuff at all yet. The only categorization input I have is that I really, really dislike the "Victorian Era" categories and prefer to use them only on British ships. If you have a strong interest in civilian ships and are in the mood, you might be able to come up with some categorization guidelines for them. TomTheHand 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I hope I didn't overstep the mark with my response. I was rather nettled by it all, and would value your opinion either way. Kind regards, Benea 00:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think it's all ended amicably for now. There's hope for the Special relationship after all. Benea 01:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I see that you are both interested in naval history and a stickler for verifiable citations. That makes you a perfect candidate to answer this question for me. Have you ever heard of Lewis Nixon (a naval architect)? It is claimed that he invented sonar, and there are lots of internet sites that repeat this claim, but none of them seem to lead anywhere. The claim is either complete nonsense or a valuable piece of little known history. I have challenged the statement here, and I am concerned it may be one of those examples where Wikipedia is creating a myth, exporting it the wider internet, and then completing the circle by reimporting the myth. I don't mean to imply anything underhand is going on, but I have the impression that the proper checks have not been made. I just wondered if you knew anything about the man or his supposed invention. Any other thoughts? Thunderbird2 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Lewis Nixon, and I know very little about the invention of sonar, but it really, really pisses me off when false information gets put into Wikipedia and then spread throughout the Internet. I'll try to dig up some info. TomTheHand 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Nixon gets 16 hits on Navy.mil, but his name never appears on the same page as sonar; I find that to be incredibly suspicious. I'd like to see if I can make it to the NC State library tomorrow to check this out. TomTheHand 22:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I found something. It is an analysis written by Lewis Nixon of lessons learnt from the Titanic. Read the text starting "The eophone is ..." and then "The submarine bell ..." on p750. It proves he was at least aware of the possibilities. What do you think? Thunderbird2 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it doesn't say much, because by that time (June 1912) Richardson had already applied for his patent. Thunderbird2 00:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Thunderbird2 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, TomTheHand. Sorry about the category reorganization. I was unaware of any categorization system for ships. (I suggest that the ship project put a notification at the top of the talk page and/or at the top of the category page. If the category page is chosen, you may want to link to an explanation rather than putting a paragraph or two at the top of all of the categories.) I was not going to replace the category. I was just correcting the category hierarchy. Category:United States Navy submarines is a subcategory of Category:Submarines of the United States. Generally, an article or category should not appear in both a category and a subcategory of that category. Many categories were in both "Category:United States Navy submarines" and "Category:Submarines of the United States". I was making it so that categories and articles that should be in "Category:United States Navy submarines" were in it. At the same time, I removed those articles from "Category:Submarines of the United States". If a visitor came to "Category:Submarines of the United States", he or she would see the subcategory "Category:United States Navy submarines". Since almost all of the articles and categories are about U.S. Navy submarines, the subcategory would be very conspicuous.

If it is preferred to keep the articles and categories all in "Category:Submarines of the United States" that is fine, but I suggest that "Category:United States Navy submarines" be deleted because they would be nearly identical. As far as I know, only "Category:Research submarines of the United States" and its articles do not belong in the U.S. Navy category.

I have to leave soon and may not be back for a while, so it may take a couple of hours to several days, depending on how things go, to get back to you if you leave another message. Thanks, Kjkolb 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What you're essentially seeing is an uneasy compromise between two points of view as to how ships should be categorized: by country, for ease of browsing by people unfamiliar with the subject, or by navy, for the greatest possible accuracy. They're two separate structures, but in some cases the navy category has been made a subcategory of the country category. I believe that United States Navy submarines should be deleted and upmerged, but similar deletion discussions have resulted in no consensus. Sorry it's such a mess. TomTheHand 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you, as an Admin, for feedback on a relatively simple edit war in which I've become involved. In brief: An editor introduced content into a biography that consisted of speculation of murder. I reverted with a note to see the talk page. On talk, I challenged the editor to provide additional sources to support notability (i.e. one guy saying "She did it!" is not speculation worthy of inclusion). He has participated in the discussion on the talk page, but refuses to accept the consensus of several editors, and persists in reinserting his content and disregarding the concerns of other editors in a most tendentious manner.

The article talk page: Talk:Katharine Graham

Related discussion: on my talk page and his talk page (history)

This is the first time I've run into a dispute of this magnitude, and I'd value your input on what I could have done better, as well as what I can/should do from here. I posted on WP:BIO a few days ago seeking outside involvement without much success, and we are rapidly approaching a 3RR issue. Is RfC the next step? Appreciate any advice you might have for me. Maralia 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into this and see what's to be done. One thing I'd like to say off the bat is that while an RfC about a user's conduct is a pretty big deal, an RfC on an article is not, and it's a great way to get a few fresh perspectives on an issue. No need to hesitate to submit an RfC for a content dispute as long as you feel capable of providing an anonymous, neutral description of the dispute. TomTheHand 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read up on the debate, checked into his sources, and removed his edits. However, at this point, having participated in the debate. I don't feel that I can participate as an admin. If he violates the 3RR or something we'll need to report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. TomTheHand 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wholeheartedly agree that his source was fringe, but I chose what I thought was the less confrontational path of requesting additional sources, rather than openly challenging the one presented. Sometimes you can't win for losing. Maralia 19:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is a bad thing, but sometimes you just can't come up with a compromise with someone with a fringe opinion. I'm by no means advocating majority rule, but at a certain point you've got to say "Look, you're the only one who thinks the article should be this way. We're going to change it to how all of us think it should be, and if you change it back we're going to revert it." The 3RR keeps situations like that from going on forever. TomTheHand 19:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Parlahueso isa sock puppet of copperchair The same reverts at Battle_of_Chora as User:Casavette. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I'll second that. Altough he is apparently a new user, Parlahueso has jumped straight into an edit war on the Battle of Chora article, reverting to a past version by Casavette.

See his reverts: [7], [8], [9] and that of Casavette: [10]. There's also an IP 190.10.0.18, stragely similar to 190.10.0.111, who has made the same kind of reverts: [11], [12]. Can you block them out of hand or should someone file a new request for checkuser? Regards. Raoulduke47 11:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not jumping on this yesterday; I read the message early in the morning and by the time I was ready to do some editing I had forgotten about it. In about two hours I'll review their edits and probably block, but I'll do a checkuser report anyway to get sleepers nuked as well. If you guys wanted to fill out the RFCU I'd appreciate it, but I'll do it myself if you don't mind the wait. TomTheHand 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, both are blocked, the RFCU confirmed their sockpuppetry, and no sleepers were found. Thanks for the report, guys! TomTheHand 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And thanks to you for your diligence. Raoulduke47 19:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom. After working with User:Rif Winfield, he brought this problem to my attention:

Benea, I do have another item where your help would be appreciated, in connection with the Williams design 64s of the Intrepid Class. There were fifteen ships to this design, but three of them were incorrectly separated out on WP pages as a spurious Magnanime class. There was no separate Magnanime design - the Magnanime, Diadem and Sampson were all units of the Intrepid Class. I have added them to [Intrepid class ship of the line] but the existing references to [Magnanime class ship of the line] needs deletion. The original error appears to have come about through copying from Brian Lavery's The Ship of the Line; but careful studying of the original draughts for these vessels reveals no distinctive feature, and I have discussed this with Brian who can not recall any reason why he separated the three ships out in his book when written in the 1980s - he indicated it was probably a mistake that needs correction (his superb and oft-quoted book has been reprinted but never corrected). Can you kindly correct the disambiguation and links accordingly? Thanks. Rif Winfield 13:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rif_Winfield"

I can fix the links and what-not, but it seems then that Magnanime class ship of the line and [[Category:Magnanime class ships of the line]] need deleting. What do you think, and if you think they should, would you be able to help? Kind regards, Benea 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would first try dropping Martocticvs a line and talking about this with him. He's been off-Wiki for a couple of weeks but not so long that I think he's disappeared long-term. If you discuss it and he agrees with you, he could put a {{ db-author}} tag on both the article and the category and I'd be happy to delete them both. If you're not able to get in touch with him, I would suggest making Magnanime class ship of the line a redirect to Intrepid class ship of the line (you can do that yourself) and starting up a CFD for the category. I can't just delete it based on your explanation; it would need to go through the process. If you post on WP:SHIPS about the CFD, many members (including me) will !vote delete based on your explanation, so you shouldn't have any trouble. TomTheHand 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea of a redirect occurred to me not long after I posted, and would catch anyone using Lavery, so I suspect that would be the way to go. I'll put it to Martocticvs and see what he thinks. When I've got his opinion, I'll post the Category for deletion too. Thanks, Benea 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)