User talk:TomTheHand

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

Re: Edits to Template:Infobox Ship Career

Sorry, but I thought those fields would be useful. --  Denelson83  22:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 00:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ship infobox

Hi there Tom, could you check that I have got all the key components of the Ship infobox protected and then check the post at WT:SHIPS to make sure I have done what was requested. Don't want to miss anything! Thanks. Woody (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67)

Show me where the Navy lists her as a Kitty Hawk-class. Neovu79 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A question for you

I have question regarding Japanese Navy ships of World War II. This is personal project of mine to make all articles of this class conform with standards of WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS. You say all Infoboxes should have metric measurement first followed by English measurement. But some destroyer Infoboxes refer to hidden table of armaments for destroyer class. See example Ushio. Hidden tables do not conform to your standards. They list English measurements first. How do I change them? Shibumi2 (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The hidden tables are in the Template namespace. You can find them by preceding the page name with "Template:". For example, to reach the displacement template, go to Template:Fubuki class destroyer displacement, and to reach the propulsion template, go to Template:Fubuki class destroyer propulsion. Please let me know if this isn't clear and I'll try to explain it better. Good luck! TomTheHand (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tom. I changed templates for Fubuki-class. Please review my work. Also I wrote answer to your question about metric measurement of speed on my page. These are ships used in World War II. For that period metric units (km/h) appear first on books and ship blueprints published in Japan. Earlier books and diagrams ~1920 used traditional Japanese units of measurement first. I will continue my work on Japanese Navy ships articles as my schedule will allow. I am very grateful for your help. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A duty of disambiguation

Hi Tom,

I just posted a message on MOSNUM that you may wish to comment on, as I quoted you on the use of 'ton' in ships articles. I hope I got my facts right, but please feel to correct me. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've commented. I like your proposal, and I think it'll be a good addition to the MoS with a few examples of how it applies to various situations. I posted one situation where I think your suggestion looks awkward, and I welcome your input on how to clean it up. TomTheHand (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It does look awkward. I'll give it some thought. I should explain that I picked 'ton' as an example in the hope that it would be relatively uncontroversial, compared with (say) the megabyte. Do you mind if you attribute the quote to you? (at present I've left it anonymous) Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if you attribute the quote to me. TomTheHand (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Luftwaffe as a generic term

Tom, I noticed that you are involved in a discussion whether or not the word Luftwaffe is used in a generic way in German. I added some new and compelling (so I think) arguments to the discussion, you might be interested in. I would like to invite you to share your point of view and to facilitate the decision making. -> link. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ship class template revamp

I hadn't seen any activity with WT:SHIPS#Ship_class_template_-_merge? in a while, and was wondering what the status on that project. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, totally forgot about it. I'll work on it more tomorrow. TomTheHand (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Commission/decommission fields

I seem to recall that these fields are supposed to be duplicable so you can record more than one commission/decommission date for a ship, but when I tried on USS Menard (APA-201) it didn't work for some reason. Any chance you could fix the problem there so I can see what I'm doing wrong? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The way it works is that you have to close the Infobox Ship Career template, and then open a new one with a hidden header. I've fixed the above page so you can see; if you have any questions, please let me know. The method is kind of confusing but it's the only way I could figure out to be able to repeat fields any number of times. It's the reason why the infobox is made up of separate templates: you can repeat them to really get it to look however you need. TomTheHand (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now, thanks for the explanation :)

But I can't help thinking - is this really the best way to represent commissioning/decommissioning? Would it make more sense perhaps - with ships which have been commissioned/decommissioned more than once - to just list the periods of commission under the commission heading?

So for example you'd have something like:

Commissioned: 1/5/44-20/7/46; 12/6/50-10/8/55.

Or maybe:

Commissioned:

1 May 44 - 20 Jul 46

12 Jun 50 - 10 Aug 55.

It would certainly be a lot more concise, and a lot less clumsy IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, and something that we should bring up on WP:SHIPS. I'll make the post. TomTheHand (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

TomTheHand, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anchors for Constitution

I left a note @ Template_talk:Infobox_Ship_Begin/doc#Adding_anchors and was wondering if you might have an answer on this issue? Thanks --Brad (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ship class template

Hi Tom. Sorry to be such a holdout on the in commission/commission thing, but I thought it was important we get some feedback from established shippies before going ahead with the proposed change - after all, we do want to try and make sure we get it right, because the last thing we want is more deprecated ship infoboxes (although I think they tend to inevitably get outgrown with time). Anyhow, if no-one else responds to the thread in the next 24 hours or so, I'll concede on the point, since I obviously haven't managed to attract much support for my position to date.

Since our attention is currently on the new infobox though, I thought I might as well take a good look at it to make sure there aren't any other outstanding issues. Having checked it out, I was pleasantly suprised, you have obviously been listening to some of the points previously raised and quietly incorporated them without any fanfare, so I'm pretty happy with the way it's shaping up :)

I do have a couple of minor issues though in regards to the placement of the fields. For example, looking at this section:

Capacity:
Complement:
Crew:
Time to activate:
Troops:

The "Time to activate" field looks out of place there to me. Presumably "Capacity" refers to "Cargo capacity" and "Troops" refers to "Troop capacity", so wouldn't it be more logical to group those two together? Then you would have the following order:

Capacity:
Troops:
Complement:
Crew:

- Also, wouldn't the "Capacity" field be better off just called "Cargo" since that's what it apparently refers to? So you'd have:

Cargo:
Troops:
Complement:
Crew:

- what do you think?

Also, I'm thinking maybe the "Sail plan" field would be better off directly underneath the "Propulsion" field, so that for sailing ships you would end up with something like:

Propulsion: Sail
Sail plan: Square-rigged (or whatever)

Let me know what you think. BTW I'm really pleased to see that you've fixed the large text spacing for the photo caption, that was something that was really bugging me, so, well done :) Gatoclass (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposed field rearrangements are all good ideas, and I'll make the changes tomorrow. The "Capacity" field is used for passenger capacity as well as cargo capacity, so I don't think it should get renamed to "Cargo," and I've been fighting for a long time to avoid splitting "Capacity" into a bunch of different fields for passengers, cargo, oil, automobiles, etc ;-) If I had put more thought into it when the infobox was created, I might have tried removing the "Troops" field and seeing if troops could be included under capacity too. I'm pretty sure "Troops" was carried over unchanged from the old box. I feel like a single-purpose "Capacity" field can serve many different purposes, even simultaneously; something like this looks very clean and readable to me:

Capacity:

1,200 troops

15 tanks

5,000 tons of supplies

TomTheHand (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tom I appreciate that. I'm looking forward to seeing those little tweaks turn up :)

I'm keeping a weather eye out for other little improvements that might be made. Here's one I just happened to notice - there doesn't seem to be a Ship identification field for the ship class infobox. I think the ID is useful here as well because while a class doesn't have an individual hull number, it can have a hull type such as a C3-P-Delta or a C2-S-B1 and so on. I've been putting these ID's into the "Notes" field up to now but that really isn't the ideal place for them, would you be interested in also adding an ID field to the class infobox? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I shifted the sail plan and troops fields yesterday. Sorry, I tend to be pretty slow about stuff like this. I don't think hull types should go in an ID field in the class template. The ID field of the career template is for callsigns and other kinds of ID numbers, but a hull type should really go in the type field of the characteristics template. TomTheHand (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

a MK -> an MK

Hello! I noticed in this edit that you changed "a MK 14 Mod 3 warshot torpedo" to "an MK 14 Mod 3 warshot torpedo". MK is an abbreviation for "mark", and generally if the above phrase were being read out loud you'd say "mark" instead of "em-kay", so "a MK 14" is preferable. TomTheHand (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for letting me know. I've added it to my bot's exception list so it won't do that anymore. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

New infoboxes with AWB

Tom, I noticed that when you are doing this, the notices on the talk page: {{newinfobox}} are not being removed. Can this be set in AWB to happen? -MBK₀₀₄ 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, not sure if I can automatically do that or not. I actually haven't been doing this in response to newinfobox templates, but rather as part of a long-term project to update all fleet boat articles. I'll keep an eye out for those templates and remove them in the future, manually if necessary. TomTheHand (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SS 361-364

Please stop changing the article for USS Golet (SS-361) to state that she was a Balao class. Per the Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, "SS 361-364 were build to the Gato design because Manitowoc built to Electric Boat plans and Electric Boat's Balao class plans were not ready when these boats were begun." TomTheHand (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They may have been built to Gato plans, but they are not Gato boats. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting ships, an official Navy publication, lists them as Balao boats. I think the Navy knows best as to what class a ship belongs. ;-)

DANFS is not an absolutely reliable source. I have submitted corrections to them myself. Being built to Gato plans makes them Gato-class boats; that's what determines a ship's class. TomTheHand (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

SS 361-364

I apologize, and thank you for the correction. I now see the page in the Naval Register to which you refer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeFF (talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Hope to see you around on other ship articles. TomTheHand (talk)

Page move

Sorry. I know how to move a page, but I've never quite been sure what to do when the page you want to move the content to already exists. I figured probably the least invasive way to go about it was just to do a copy and paste, because it preserves the history of both pages if someone wants to check one or the other. However, it seems that is not the recommended method. And I've had a feeling the last couple of times I've done it that it might not be the ideal method.

I figure next time, I'll nominate the page for deletion that I want to move the content to, and then move the page over once it's been deleted, would that be the right way to go about it? Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Help:Moving a page, "If the new title already exists but is just a redirect to the old title, with just one line in the page history, the creation of the redirect, then you can rename the page." You could have just used the move button to make the move. In the future, if the page has a history and can't be moved over, and it's non-controversial, you can let an admin know about it. If it's ship-related, you could post on the WP:SHIPS talk page and someone will probably take care of it quickly; otherwise you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves. That's probably a better way to go than nominating the target page for deletion, because it allows the histories to be merged and will probably get done more quickly than waiting for an AfD to close. TomTheHand (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I see from your contribution history it took you quite a bit of work to fix the mistake! Once again, my apologies, I really should have made some inquiries before going ahead with the change, but I figured (wrongly, it seems) that a simple cut and paste could be easily reversed.

I'm afraid though that that is not the only article where I have used the cut-and-paste method. Now I'm not sure whether I should give you a list, as it will mean more work for you. Let me know if you want to fix them, and I'll put a list together. I don't think I've done too many, maybe half a dozen in total over the course of a few months. Gatoclass (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't a lot of work. It's just that it requires an admin to fix, and an admin doesn't always notice that it happened. I wouldn't have seen if I didn't have that page on my watchlist. If you could list the articles you've copied and pasted, I would like to fix them, and it won't take me too long. TomTheHand (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regex

Hi. As requested, I have dumped my AWB regex on a page at User:Lightmouse/javascript conversion. Cut out the first and last lines with the word 'source' in them.

I do not use a default.xml file because I do not know how. I use 'Tools', 'Make module'. It is a bit of a pain because I have to fiddle about each time I start AWB and I do not know how to save it. If a default.xml file would make life easier, I would be grateful if you could tell me how to do it.

Furthermore, I think some of the functions could be made part of AWB general fixes (for example fixing wrong date formats that break autoformatting). These are *very* common. I have made a suggestion at the relevant AWB page but I don't think it is attracting much attention.

I hope that helps. If I can be of any other assistance, just ask. Lightmouse (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I apologize for contacting you by e-mail; I did it so that you could easily attach the file to send back to me. I'll incorporate your regexes into my AWB so that I can start using them. TomTheHand (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Any comments or suggestions, let me know. Lightmouse (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox code

Tom, could you please tell me where I can find the code for infoboxes? I've been able to put up with the minor quibbles I have with the ship infoboxes up to now, but I just took a look at the Defunct Company Infobox and it's so ugly and lacking in fields that I feel something really has to be done about it. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you edit Template:Infobox Company you'll see the code and be able to add or fix fields. If that's not what you meant, let me know! TomTheHand (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That *is* more or less what I meant, except I can't figure out how to edit it. I thought maybe I could just copy the data to my sandbox and start playing around, but all I get is an "edit protected" template there. Is there a string I can use, maybe, as a replacement for the "pp-template" function at the bottom, that will allow me to do this? Gatoclass (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What you'll need is two sandbox pages, essentially. On one, you'll copy the template code, and on the other, you'll transclude (use) the template. For example, I just copied the template code to User:Gatoclass/Template:Infobox Company, then I made another page, User:Gatoclass/Infobox Company Test, and used the infobox on it... but instead of {{Infobox Company}}, I typed {{User:Gatoclass/Template:Infobox Company}}. Now I can edit the infobox code on the first sandbox page, and see how it affects the infobox on the second. TomTheHand (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you need anything else, let me know. For example, I could add a field, and then you could look at the diff to see how I did it. TomTheHand (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, after I went to bed, the penny dropped, and I realized I would probably have to do something like that. But you've now confirmed it for me - and given me a great head start!

Thanks very much Tom, I'll let you know how it goes :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bah. I spent a couple of hours reformatting and playing around until I got a good arrangement and it was only near the end I noticed a bit of stray code was printing out at the top of the page. I couldn't track down where the text was coming from so I had to go and get a complete clean copy of the code and start over :(

Not only that, but I noticed that the Company Infobox has a "Dissolved" field that's been deprecated, and to find out why, I went back through the talk page and it turns out you are supposed to just use the "Type" field for a defunct company, ie Type Defunct (1946). And it turns out the "Defunct Company Infobox" page is just an experiment someone did, there's really no need for a dedicated "Defunct Company" infobox when you have a perfectly good "Company" infobox which is much better designed and more complete. So in that sense this project has been pretty much a complete waste of time.

On the plus side though, this has been a great learning experience for me and now I know how to fiddle with these infoboxes! So I'm pretty happy about that. Thanks very much for your help there :)

I still think the company infobox could use a few tweaks though, maybe one or two extra fields and a bit of rearrangement, so I might make some proposals at the template page when I've decided on the changes. Meanwhile, I will toss out that "Defunct Company" infobox I've been using for defunct companies and start using the standard infobox. And while I'm at it, I might propose the deletion of the "Defunct Company" infobox, because nobody should really be using it. Same probably goes for the "Co-operative" infobox and the "Non-profit" one. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

DWT on MOSNUM

Tom, this has appeared at WT:MOSNUM. I thought you might wish to comment. Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads-up! I don't do a lot of work on merchant vessels, but I'll put some thought into it and comment. I think I should also post something over at WP:SHIPS. TomTheHand (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ship infoboxes

Hi TomTheHand - as I used the template on Taiko (ship), I'd like to ask whether the template cannot be changed so that the name of the ship is a bit more prominent in the infobox. I am aware that a ship may have had many names over time - but still, either all or the most recent one (?) should stand out more, I think. Such as for example, being centred in the box and bild, instead being in the standard "Name: Taiko" format. Maybe in the field that says now "Career (Norway)" it could be added at the right-hand side in the same bold type. Would not need re-editing of the individual transclusions, as there is obviously already and individual name field that only needs to be edited within the main template. Ingolfson (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I really don't think it's necessary to make the name more prominent; the article title is "Taiko", so the ship's name is very obvious. I generally only populate the name field when the name has changed, to illustrate the various names of the ship. TomTheHand (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Movie info on USS Pampanito

I appreciate your letting me know what happened. I figured it was probably accidental since you seem to be very clear in your edit summaries, but it's nice to know. doncram (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way I have moved on to adding NRHP and NHL information to USCGC Ingham (WHEC-35), as I am marching through List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina. I would combine the ship infobox and the NRHP infobox, but the ship infobox there is not set up like the series of infoboxes within the current Pampanito article, so it's not immediately obvious how to do the combination. The Pampanito edit history is a bit confusing to follow, too. Would you mind doing the combo for Ingham, too, now that you have it figured out? I think sometimes keeping the infoboxes separate, may make sense for some long articles, but combining appears to be better in the Ingham article. Thanks, doncram (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ingham does need to be updated to the latest ship infobox, but it's one of about a gazillion articles that need that. I'm working through submarines now, but I'm sure Ingham will get updated by someone eventually. TomTheHand (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Hi Tom, I replied to your latest comment. If I put 'is claimed' in front of the claims would that be ok because I know that these claims havent come out of nowhere, but am finding it really hard to find any concrete refs. When I come across them, then I'll add them. If you could confirm this, I have no issue changing them. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Following Tel Aviv's third failed FAC, I have worked on the issues brought up and renominated it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive changed the claim to to 'is claimed to have the'. Does this solve the issue? Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'know what'd have been clever...

It occurred to me that you could write a template foo: template1 → template2. Then just scream through the list of occurrences of template1 with AWB and replace "template1" with "subst:foo". Oh well, maybe next time. :) Cheers. Haus^Talk 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, damn it, you're right. In fact, when Gatoclass asked here whether we could just replace {{Infobox Ship}} with a redirect to the new infobox, I thought to myself "No, but you could replace Infobox Ship with code that just calls the new infobox... that wouldn't accomplish anything, though." Your idea is just a little logical leap from that, though, and is awesome. Our "next time" might be implementing that to convert {{Infobox Ship Class}}. Only problem is that the new ship infobox doesn't contain all of the old fields... we put our heads together, looked at Infobox Ship Class, and tried to pare it down a lot. TomTheHand (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dagnabit ... now why didn't I think of that! It's a good idea, and would save a good deal of time off the update/conversion process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna try writing one of these for Woody to help him translate {{Infobox Military Submarine}}. I'm writing it here. Questions, comments, suggestions welcome. Cheers. Haus^Talk 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

TomTheHand, Template Guru

Tom, I consider you one of the WP:SHIPS template gurus, so I wanted to get your opinion. Maralia and I were discussing the need (here) for a template—along the lines of {{Ref Jane's}}, {{JamesAbstract}}—for when one wants/needs to cite DANFS. I hacked together a working version here (with a sandbox where I tried to use different permutations of all of the parameters). I want to make the documentation more explicit that this is not intended to replace {{DANFS}} (as well as making the documentation better in general). Also, I was thinking of something along the lines of naming it {{cite DANFS}}. I'd love your feedback on any aspect of it. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me! I think it's a good idea, and I agree that {{cite DANFS}} is a good name. If you need any technical help, please let me know. TomTheHand (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An admin task if you've time?

Hey ho Tom. Nothing particularly ship related in this instance, but since you've been kind enough to shunt articles about for me before I thought I'd ask. George E. T. Eyston has been moving about over a number of redirects, over the issue of it previously being titled Captain George E.T. Eyston. Several admins have had a go at moving it before to a title that drops the 'Captain' as per conventions, and the creator has now indicated that he doesn't mind it being changed to George Eyston, which would be the norm for such an article. The discussion is here by the way. ttfn, Benea (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! TomTheHand (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From Middim13: Abusing multiple accounts and evasion.

Dear Mr. "Tomthehand":

Would you kindly realize that I am neither (purposely) abusing multiple accounts or trying to "evade" anyone for any reason. I don't seek any agenda on Wikipedia other than to set records straight and to tell truth regardless of its lack of political correctness. There are many selfish individuals in the "naval community" and the companies that supply them weapons who are arrogant, greedy and dishonest. These are the types of people that bring America down a most corrupt path. "They" also lack integrity and make up stories - as they conspire in silence to cover up other facts that brought them to where they are today. So I would appreciate it if you did not "go out of your way" to make it easier for "them" to distort history as they warp the truth and corrupt America. The truth is not (always) going to be what "they" would like "you" to hear... or what they want you to know... so I hope you are not one of "them". You have made the truth (regarding Frank Cable, Electric Boat, and other naval historic facts (such as America's first submarines) much more difficult for others to learn about... and openly access - as you have reverted perfectly "fair and balanced" information in the most biased and slanted way. A lot like how the "main stream" elite left-winged media behave in the United States. Please forgive me if I'm wrong about your character. Let's let the truth rule the day and stop censuring what is true in the name of Political Correctness or any other name for that matter. Thank You for you honest understanding when it simply comes to setting certain records straight... as many have distorted for their own agendas.