User talk:TomTheHand/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

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

Monique Alexander

OK,TOM THE HAND or may we should call you TOM THE HAMMER because you hammer me all day on two articles today. thank you, JRMAN john toth 04:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure that I hammered you. I removed unsourced information from Monique Alexander just once, and I kept restoring good information that you were removing on I-400 class submarine. TomTheHand 04:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

please check article on I-400

You will see that deck cannon in inches is 5.51 i said 6in . which was incorrect by a little bit but

dia. in inches was put in . also cal . 50 which you said but you talk to any navy man and he will tell 

you when are talking about cannons or guns . They talk in inches. not cal. Iowa class battleship has 16in. guns not cal. A machine gun on the other hand is talked about in cal. EXAMPLE A 50.CAL THANK YOU ,JRMANjohn toth 04:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to explain this one more time. Please read this carefully.

"Caliber" has a different meaning for naval guns. The I-400 class submarines had a 140 mm 50 caliber gun, which means that the barrel is 140 mm in diameter and 7000 mm long, because 7000 is 140 × 50. The Iowa class battleships had 16 in 50 caliber guns, which means that the barrel is 16 inches in diameter and 800 inches long, because 800 is 16 × 50. The South Dakota class battleships had 16 in 45 caliber guns: 16 inches diameter, 720 inches long, because 720 is 16 × 45. HMS Hood had 15 in 42 caliber guns: barrel 15 inches diameter, 630 inches long (15 × 42 = 630). Do you see the pattern?

In naval guns, caliber is not barrel diameter. It is barrel length. It is completely different from the "caliber" you're talking about with machine guns. The length of a naval gun is measured in calibers, not millimeters, inches, meters, or feet.

Please read the article about caliber to learn more.

Most people only know about the definition of "caliber" used for small arms, like pistols or machine guns. I see that that's the only definition that you know, and I understand. However, I'm becoming frustrated because I'm not having much success explaining this other definition to you.

Are you having trouble understanding this definition of "caliber", or do you just think I'm wrong? If you're having trouble understanding, please ask me questions and I'll do my best to answer them. If you think I'm wrong, I will try to provide you with more sources where you can learn what "caliber" means. TomTheHand 04:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

W e are talking about length of a gun or cannon.

When comes to cannons or guns . People do not talk of length of guns or cannons eg. cal. EXAMPLE IOWA CLASS BATTLESHIPS TALK ABOUT GUNS IN 16IN. DIA. NOT LENGTH. Thank YOU ,JRMANjohn toth 04:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You may not care about the length of a gun, which is fine. However, many people do care. For example, the US Navy does.

Here is a page on navy.mil where they talk about their 5 inch 54 caliber gun: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=100&ct=2

Here is the US Navy's page on their 76 mm 62 caliber gun: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=600&ct=2

Also look at the labels on the last two pictures on this page: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb49cl.htm

TomTheHand 04:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK

WHAT MARK ,NUMBER OF DECK CANNON IS I-400? LIKE MARK "7" ON A IOWA CLASS BATTLESHIP.THANK YOU, JRMANjohn toth 05:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese named their guns after the year they were designed. However, they didn't use Western years, so I'm not exactly sure how they come up with their years. The I-400 class's deck gun was the "14 cm 11th Year Type."

I'd like to explain why the length of a gun is an important piece of information. In a longer gun, there's more time for the exploding gunpowder to push the shell, so a longer gun will fire a faster-moving shell. A faster-moving shell will generally be more accurate and have longer range. However, a longer gun is also heavier. The Iowa class's 16" 50 caliber guns weighed almost 120 tons apiece, without the breech, while the South Dakota's shorter 16" 45 caliber guns weighed a little over 96 tons apiece.

Obviously, that means a ship can carry fewer 16" 50 cal guns than 16" 45 cal guns. There's another important factor to weight, too. A lighter gun is easier to move and aim. In the 1930s, American battleships carried two kinds of 5" guns at the same time: a 5" 25 caliber gun, which was a short, lightweight anti-aircraft gun, and a 5" 51 caliber gun, which was a long, heavy, high velocity weapon for use against smaller ships. Later, in the 1940s, both 5" guns were replaced by the famous 5" 38 caliber dual purpose gun, which was an intermediate length and could be used against both planes and ships.

Do you see now why someone would want to talk about the length of guns? TomTheHand 05:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of the year used in the nomenclature of the weapon, the Japanese used (as they continue to use) the nengō system, denoting the year of the Imperial reign (see Japanese era name). The Emperor Taishō became Emperor in 1912. The 140mm gun was designed in 1922; nengō works by subtracting one year from the acension to the throne, plus the difference of years between that and the year in question. And voila, "11th Year Type" becomes Taishō 11 Type, dating it to 1922. --Harlsbottom 14:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to many people talk of length

TRUE NOT TO MANY PEOPLE TALK OF LENGTH , OF GUN OR CANNON BUT IT SEEMS TO ME HOW MANY ARTICLES ON NAVY SHIPS HAVE THEM. CHECK WIKIPEDIA ,ON NAVIES NOT TO MANY .john toth 05:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

400 SUBS SUNK WERE ?

WHERE DID YOU GET INFORMATION . IF I'M NOT CORRECT ,I SAW ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL THAT THE SUBS WERE SUNK OFF THE COAST OF JAPAN. john toth 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I added two links that discuss it. Most captured Japanese subs were sunk off the coast of Japan. However, four were taken back to Hawaii, examined, and then sunk off of Hawaii. TomTheHand 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE FROM THE PACER FARM.

THE ARTICLE FROM THE "PACER FARM"IS FICTIONAL.CHECK DISCOVERY CHANNEL .COM ALSO FOUND WAS I-58 OFF THE COAST OF JAPAN. THE SUB THAT SUNK THE CRUISER U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS.john toth 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific than "Check discoverychannel.com"? TomTheHand 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

i-400 class subs

I have the dvd on these subs looking for ep.number.john toth 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

SUBS I-400

Discovery Channel /Canada and PARALLAX Film Productions Inc. in 2004. the subs and i-58 were found in april 20th ,2004. In a depth of 197.6 meters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JRMAN (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Here is the DANFS entry for USS Trumpetfish, the submarine that sank I-400: [1] It was off the coast of Hawaii. If the Discovery Channel said differently, they're wrong. TomTheHand 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I-400

Check HURL WEB SITE . Look at the photo of sub it is not I-401 but I-40Ajohn toth 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. TomTheHand 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

linkspam

Just curious how you define linkspam as one of the links I added was removed despite the fact that it was relevant to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.114.25.174 (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The link you posted is a tiny, non-notable forum. Wikipedia is not the place to drum up hits for your web site. TomTheHand 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

NA Virtual Console Topic

I recently made an edit to the VC page stating that same games may be uncomfortable to play due to the layout of the GameCube controller, and how its layout differs drastically from the NES, N64, and SNES layouts, and can thus make some games uncomfortable to play. You removed this information stating: "reverting unsourced original research".

Why? I don't understand what you mean. I and several of my friends and many others on message boards have found that some games are rather akward to play on the GameCube controller, like Super Mario World. For example, in that game, Y is run, B is jump, A is spin attack. On the Classic Controller, this is very comfortable and easy to accomplish. On a GameCube controller, this is not, which you can tell just by looking at it. I don't understand what you mean and why this would be deleted. I think it should be included so people will know some games may be uncomfortable with the GCN controller. Thank you. PsychicKid1 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check out Wikipedia's policy on original research. Essentially, any information that goes onto Wikipedia must be published by a reliable source. Also check out the policy on verifiability, which is related. Specifically, this sentence is very important:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

What you're saying is undoubtedly true, but all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable sources. If a well-known gaming site writes an article about the difficulty of playing some SNES games with the GC controller, then the information can be included, but you can't write about your personal experience on Wikipedia. TomTheHand 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for clearing this up. You have helped me out quite a bit and saved me from some potentional embarassment. PsychicKid1 02:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Worden

As far as the info on the Worden , maybe you didn't know where to look. It came from http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/nhcorg12.htm and navysite.de/navy/sinkex/hawaii/cg18.htm

A lot of times , people who consider themselves editors have no clue as to what they are doing .

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinthefirst (talk • contribs)

Worden is not mentioned on the first link. Could you give me the specific link that mentions her?

The second link is not the Navy's web site; on the Worden article, you said that the information is from "U.S. Navysite", which I assumed meant "The U.S. Navy's site." If you found the information on navysite.de, a German web site unaffiliated with the U.S. Navy, you needed to actually say so. TomTheHand 18:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

http://navysite.de/navy/sinkex/hawaii/ , lists EVERY ship sunk in the area and the geographical coordinates . This is the site where the information came from AND I listed it as such.Worden is at the bottom right of the circle of concentrated red dots. You can also find it at the top link I gave earlier the historynav.mil site , you just need to know where to search for it.

Yes, I see now that navysite.de has the information. On the Worden article, you said you got it from "U.S. Navysite" ([2]), which is unhelpful. I think most people who read that would think you meant that you got the information from the U.S. Navy's web site. In the future, please provide the link. Now, where is the information found on history.navy.mil? TomTheHand 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see now that you thought I interpreted your above post as a personal attack. I didn't; I was referring to your rant on your talk page, which includes statements like "You seem like you're an 8 year old," and, earlier, "you are just a pompous meddlesome IDIOT," as well as statements on Talk:USS Worden (CG-18) like "I am NOT going to get into a pissing contest with a smart ass." TomTheHand 13:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

White bordered USN flag template

Hey! Sorry, this is old news, but I just noticed this edit: [3]. The USN flag template already adds a white border to flags to highlight them against a dark background, so there's no need to put border| in front. Just wanted to save you some effort in case you're using the template in articles. TomTheHand 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think I knew that, but at my age reminders are always worthwhile. Probably why my wife keeps telling me what to do (bless her). Another aide memoire, please, my friend. Was it agreed to use the USN ensign instead of the jack? I'm wary of treading on toes, but the jack does grate, for some reason. Folks at 137 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was decided to use whichever would be most distinct from the national flag. That means it's the jack for the US Navy and the ensign for the Royal Navy. I personally agree with you; I don't see the benefit of trying to be distinct from the national flag at the cost of displaying a flag that's less representative of what a ship would actually be flying most of the time.

A big part of my reason for creating the template is that everyone can agree to use it, and if in the future consensus changes to using ensigns, we can change the template and instantly get ensigns instead of jacks. I figure if we make it easy to change from jacks to ensigns, it'll be easier to get consensus to do so. TomTheHand 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Copperchair

Check out User:Esteban "Lex" Saborío (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Undid your revert of the anon on the War on Terrorism template and a number of edits on Lex Luthor which was a favored hangout of other Copperchair socks. --Bobblehead 02:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The name is suspiciously similar to that of a previous Copperchair sock as well: Esaborio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Let me look into it for a few more minutes to be sure. TomTheHand 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)