Talk:NMS Elisabeta

Built!
User:Sturmvogel 66 Alright, let's talk a bit. Does a tank without a gun can be called completed? Can a fighter plane without machine guns and/or light cannons be called a fighter? No, ofcourse not. Just like a cruiser cannot be called a cruiser without it's guns. The guns, are part of the ship, and their addition counts as building. Yes, Elisabeta the boat was built in Britain, but Elisabeta the cruiser was completed in Romania. Her completion was made at Galați, by mounting the guns, the very parts that make her a cruiser. Thus, Galați is one of the builders. Understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.134.115 (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly, your interpretation isn't backed up by published sources who only list the British company as the builders, while noting that she was armed in Romania. And that's what this article needs to reflect, not your idiosyncratic beliefs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 If you take it like that then I guess you're right...Still, can't it be mentioned anywhere on the table that she was armed at Galați? Like, add a new line called "Armed:", or be something like: Builder: Armstrong, Elswick (unarmed ship) Galați (armament mounting)? I just want this "noting that she was armed in Romania" somewhere on the table, it's only fair.
 * The standard references like Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, etc., don't say anything about where she was armed in their tabular summaries. They mention that in the text part of the entry, which is how we're supposed to do it on Wikipedia.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 Alright, you're the expert...But I still think it's unfair. There WAS Romanian work put into this ship. It wasn't just all-ready-for-action delivered boat. But the people who only read the tabular summaries will never know, that's why I think it should be done something there too...


 * All they have to do is read the second sentence in the introduction - that shouldn't be that much to ask. Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 I noticed that you are the one who made this article. Well then, mind doing an article about these as well? http://romaniaforum.info/board3-marina-romana-romanian-navy/board140-marina-militara-romana-pina-la-1945-romanian-royal-navy-before-1945/board472-stt-monitors-ion-c-bratianu-class-1907-and-later/426-1907-ion-c-bratianu-class-river-monitors/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.134.115 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but no promises when. Feel free to remind me in a month or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 Sorry for sounding like an ignorant douchebag, but I genuinely don't understand how can it take a month to write a few words! You can just make the basic article, with nothing in it, I can write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.134.115 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 Nnnnnnope! Sorry man, but after seeing some stuff, I am determined not to give up on this. Look at this. If we built it, and they armed it, then it's ok, but if others build it and we arm it, then it's no-no? I'm sorry, but all I get from this is racism. Racism against Romanians, and as a Romanian, I am obviously not going to just sit and watch. Besides, what is the problem now, even? I did put it on a separate line with the mention that it was only the armament adding. And if the Dutch can arm a ship built by us and get away with it in the infobox, then I don't see why wouldn't we do the same. In the end, please, just give it a rest, the armament mention really doesn't hurt anyone, and as mentioned above, it's not fair, due to the specified example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.134.115 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that one, although outfitted is different than just arming, but that means nothing in reference to this article. Your accusation of racism is not merely technically wrong, as Romanian isn't a race, unlike Caucasian, but rather pathetic as well, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for pushing this, but...
User:Sturmvogel 66 According to this article's categories, and also what it says at the stubs logo, refit IS an act of ship building. Thus, I really don't see why "Galați (refit)" should not be added in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.121.21 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, refitting is a subset of shipbuilding and don't say that you're sorry when you absolutely aren't. You have nothing to justify these repeated actions except your own unsupported opinion. Published accounts of the ship only list Armstrongs as the builder and confine Galati Shipyard to a mention in the text. I have no idea why you've fixated on this unimportant fact about the ship, but it's getting tiresome. You said you were content with the caption in the infobox that mentions the shipyard, but now you've returned to your former demand. However, I have something that may satisfy your over-developed sense of nationalism.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 Thankyou so much, really appreciate it. By the way, I got something that I need you to help me with. 4 articles about Romanian ships, but with no photos: NMS Amiral Murgescu, NMS Rechinul, NMS Marsuinul and Brătianu-class river monitor. Can you please search photos for them and make some photo files so they can get their pictures?

User:Sturmvogel 66 "I have no idea why you've fixated on this unimportant fact about the ship". "Unimportant"? Okay, first of, refit is pretty much what kept the ship going for 15 more years, essentially doubling her time in use. By what standards is that "unimportant"? Second of all, I fixated myself on it because, unknown to you, Elisabeta's refit was the first major shipbuilding-related action of the Romanian naval industry. Never before such a broad and complex work had been performed on such a large warship. And the fact that this "first step", this major Romanian achievement was completely left outside the infobox made me very angry, because it was really unfair. Yes, we refitted many other ships throughout the first half of the 20th century, but this refit in particular was our first step into serious naval industry. And 110 years after that first step, after Elisabeta's refit, we completed what is today the largest ship in both the Dutch and German navies. And it all started with Elisabeta's refit. Do you understand now, why it is so important?
 * Relatively unimportant to the ship as she was only about 15 years old, far more important to the history of the shipyard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 By the way, did you add the "Refit" line or it was already there, and you just wrote after the =? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.121.21 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The line was already there, but I forgot about it because I don't think that it's all that important. Especially for ships that receive multiple refits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 Man, there's no such thing as "important" or "unimportant". If an infobox line about a ship can be completed, then you complete it. It's history, take it all for what it is. Don't cut corners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.121.21 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll continue to use my best judgement about what to include where. I mentioned the refit in the main body, which is exactly where it needed to be covered. I don't much care whether or not the refit was included in the infobox or not, so don't try and lecture me about cutting corners.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 And you don't try to lecture me, a Romanian, about a Romanian ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.193.71 (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then be more objective about the topic, as Wiki requires, instead of a Romanian partisan. There was some better information on the ship's participation in WWI in that Romanian-language article that you found that I had to add after laboriously translating. Being a native speaker, it would have been far easier for you to do so rather than me. And there might be some additional information in that article that could usefully be incorporated into the article, but it was painful enough to translate that I'm not going to bother with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 Look what I made yesterday. My friend with an account published my draft. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.121.21 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Better, but why don't you just get an account for yourself? But it does raise some issues since the ship had been disarmed. So how did she repulse anything with only a few AA guns aboard? Was the port defended by coastal artillery and did they engage the Mdilli instead? And what specific page references the action? I translated the last page which covers the WWI period and there's nothing there that even references the action. Now that doesn't mean that the info wasn't elsewhere in the article, but citing the entire article isn't helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 Friendly reminder that we're talking about the Ottoman Navy here. After the Greeks, Russians and even Bulgarians shat on them, there's quite possible that they just ran away when Elisabeta fired on them whatever guns she had. That or they thought she was still able to launch torpedoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.121.21 (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Midilli was partially German manned and had a pretty good record against the Russian fleet so I'm doubtful that she just ran away when faced with opposition. The Ottoman Steam Navy makes no reference to any attack on Sulina in 1916 by any ship, so I'd have to say that this whole affair needs much better documentation as the one source mentioned in the article doesn't confirm that any attack occurred, at least the part that I translated. So I'd suggest that you spend some time on additional research lest the article be deleted for lack of sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 Seriously man...you have time to argue with me over stuff, but you don't have time to find a picture for NMS Amiral Murgescu, the first warship made in Romania? Look, I will never make an account. For various reasons that are not of your buisiness, please respect that. I need you to make a file video for her. There are enough pictures with her on the Internet to choose from, please, just DO IT! She deserves it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.121.21 (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, nothing is stopping you from searching and uploading the photo yourself, even as an IP address.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't have unlimited amounts of time here, IP. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 What are you talking about?..It just won't let me upload anything! Seriously, would it kill you to do it? Are 5 minutes of your time so hard to spare to give a great warship a picture? Is that so much of a Herculean effort? Look, here's the site. Just take the last picture from the page, it's the one with the highest quality. http://www.ligamilitarilor.ro/arc-peste-timp/puitorul-de-nms-amiral-murgescu-al-doilea-razboi-mondial/
 * A) We are not beholden to you? If it's that important, please create an account. B) See FAQ/Copyright and below. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To some degree, I sympathize with your concerns about the marginalization of Romanian history as I agree that the Romanian contribution is often overlooked or discounted, mostly due to the language barrier. But you go overboard in your determination to emphasize and give proper credit to the Romanians, like that farcical article you started on Elisabeta firing blanks at Potemkin. That should have been added to the ship's article instead. And I spent an hour or more translating a single goddamn page of Romanian to clarify the last years of Elisabeta that you could have done in a few minutes. And I still don't know if there was anything useful in that article on her earlier career because you were fussing at me over the Romanian flag hoisted aboard Potemkin, a trivial incident of no real significance or importance in the history of the ship. I don't think that you've taken the time to learn Wiki's policies in your impatience to correct what you deem to be slightings of Romania and her accomplishments. You're not entirely wrong in your belief, but I think that that you need to learn that sometimes the Romanian role or contribution was actually was pretty minor or trivial and an objective assessment of whatever they did, both good, bad and indifferent, is what we're all about here on Wiki. You've made some good points on Elisabeta and Potemkin, and I've incorporated them in the articles, but you need to learn that articles are graded to different standards.
 * Potemkin is a FA-class article, that's the highest rating we have on Wiki and roughly equivalent to being published in an academic journal, and I worked my ass off to get it to that standard, so I'm not about to tolerate material being added that didn't fully comply with the high standards required. But I got tired of you reverting and calling me names when I didn't agree with your wishes, so I asked for help. Elisabeta is only a B-class article, so the standards are lower, but I have hopes to taking it to Good Article status if I can get its history filled out further. I'd also like to bring other Romanian warship articles up to GA status, but it's been too hard to find material on their peacetime activities to even think about it. But if you're willing to work with me, learn to lower your expectations, and keep a civil tongue in your head, I'd be willing to ask the admins to conditionally allow you to contribute under strict controls as I think you have material of real importance to contribute. But I'm talking about something like where you propose every change that you'd like to make on that article's talk page for approval by me or another experienced editor. You'd also have to learn and obey Wiki's policies on WP:NPOV, WP:Copyright, etc. And lastly, you need to appreciate that your priorities are not always shared by others; we all have lives offline and other interests on Wikipedia, so that things will probably not always be done as promptly as you might wish. Your repeated requests to do various things were rather annoying and caused me sometimes not to even bother to look at whatever you were asking me to so.
 * In short, I believe that you have a lot to offer to Wikipedia, and I'm willing to work with you to expand Romanian-related articles, but only if you're willing to act like a reasonable person and not throw a tantrum whenever you don't get exactly what you want. And if you're willing to follow Wiki's policies and the normal rules of politeness. I know that this is a lot to ask, but I'm willing to extend this lifeline if you're willing to take it, as I think that you're probably worth my time and Wiki will benefit. You needn't reply right away, I know that this is a lot to ask for, so consider it a standing offer if your desire to contribute is genuine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy Yes, it is true, I am actually a banned user. I got banned because of my frustration and anger issues, I recognize my mistakes, and I apologize for them...But all of us make mistakes, and have issues, just like every human, just like you. Please, I ask you to understand that what I do, nobody else does, and likely will never do! They just don't care, but someone's got to do it, someone's got to care, right? It is very hard for me, to find books talking about Romanian military. Even worse is that many books available on the net do not have the certain page I seek. I spend countless hours working, and yes, sometimes I even list Romanian sources, because they're the only ones available on that certain matter. Just because the prestigious Western historians can't be bothered to care, apparently. That article about the Romanian Navy in World War I, I really dug up to get those sources. I spent hours on end seeking the sources, and even making those proper lists of ships. You claim to protect the article, protect it from what? From evolving? I took a pitiful carelessly-done list (and by carelessly I mean redirecting the user to a ship received after 1920, when the article is about WW1) that let's be honest a shame for the Wiki, and made it into a dignified, fully developed and meticulously cared article, with multiple sources and real informational value. If you bother to actually check my sources, you will discover that they are all accurate, and thus you have no real reason to keep the article in the "stone age", so to speak. The Wiki is about spreading real information found in published sources, right? And you are against me doing that just because I have a different status, nevermind the quality and work put into making the article the way it should be, right? Hours of work to find good multiple sources and good memory? Those are completely optional, right? Look, if you would care, you would just take my edits and put them back yourself. I call on you, as a human being, and ask you only this: Respect my work! All the hours and research, all the trouble with incomplete books, please, respect my work! It is the only thing that I am ever going to ask you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.128.233 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC) User:Parsecboy No, you need to understand. I can change my IP address in a matter of minutes, we can wage this stupid pointless war for as much as you want. But I don't want to. I'm a man of peace, and I objectively brought positive contributions, despite you banishing me for my stigmatic status. Look, I do not want to be needed to keep changing my IP and I'm sure you don't want to bother yourself for me anymore. Let's just reach an agreement, and stop this nonsense of a conflict. Here are my terms: I will make edits only using reliable published sources, will no longer have any anger or uncivil behavior, and we can even have Mister Sturmvogel here, if you wish, review my edits to check if they are good or bad, their credibility, you know, all the stuff. Or, we can just keep waging this stupid war, waste our nerves and neurons, time from our lives and so on. You choose.

Mister Sturmvogel, you are one of the nicest persons I met here on Wikipedia. I know I can be quite aggressive, and I am grateful that even after all my bickering, you still seek and manage to reach agreements with me. Yes, the final Potemkin changes to please me, and I myself consider the matter settled. However, I've been having some problems with your User:Parsecboy here. He keeps mindlessly editing away all my benevolent and beneficial contributions, despite me explaining as politely as I could how much I worked and that there is no problem with my edits big enough to worth complete removal of all of them. I am willing to work peacefully and civilly, and I will work on my anger issues, especially now, that I got your kind offer of colaboration. All I ask, is to be allowed to make my benevolent sourced edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.130.4 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am obviously aware you can change IPs quickly. If I wanted, I could simply lock the pages you've been editing, which would make your IP-hopping meaningless. Frankly, the fact that you have been violating Wikipedia policy simply by evading the block on your account (and pushing your nationalist nonsense, to boot) does not make me look very generously on your proposal.
 * Sturmvogel, if you'd like, I suggest you take the situation to ANI and see about a conditional un-banning along the lines you've proposed above and see where it goes from there. Generally, the standard offer applies to banned-editors who have refrained from disruptive activities for 6 months, which is obviously not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy Will you now leave the Romanian Navy in WW1 and the UB-42 articles alone? All my sources are correct, especially that I put a lot of work in the former. As for the submarine, just because the source is Romanian does not mean it is not accurate. Who else can know our history better, other than ourselves? Please, let the 2 articles as it edited them in good will. Or don't change them again when I do it.


 * No - at this juncture, you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. If I had the time and energy, I'd go back throughout the edits you've been making under your various IPs and roll everything back further. If the community decides to unban you (which is unlikely, given your continued evasion of the block), then you may edit. But not until then.
 * Want my actual advice? Leave for 6 months. Completely. Then try to request the "standard offer" I linked above. If you can do that, I would support your return under Sturmvogel's supervision. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy Then why don't /you/ do it? You have the stuff sourced, all nicely done, just put it back! Is it so hard?...Does me being banned, make all those sources I dug up unreliable? Do you really think the article looks better as a simplistic carelessly done list than the way I did it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.130.4 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Simply put, I don't have the time or inclination to go through your edits and vet them for accuracy and neutrality. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy Then let or announce someone willing to. Also, would you really go and roll back absolutely all that I did? All the articles I created or completely changed, articles absolutely nobody thought of making, articles that just had to be made? Would you flush down the toilet days and days of work and research, all done in good will, in the name of information, just like that?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.130.4 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If you have to invoke it as an excuse, the ends rarely justify the means. We have rules here that structure how the community operates, and you have been violating them for months.
 * If you are that concerned, simply go into the edit history once (if) you're unbanned and restore it then - little is ever truly gone. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy I will leave if I must, but please, leave them alone...Those articles are my life, I've been hoked to them for months as well, and even though I violated your rules, mostly good came from them. Please, I beg you is I must: Leave my work alone!.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.130.4 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no intention to go through your edits thoroughly and revert everything. And as I said above, if you are indeed willing to stop editing for 6 months (and moderate how you interact with others once you return), I'd be happy to support unbanning you. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy But...Do I really have to wait 6 months? You see, summer holiday is about to start. After that, I will be all on studies yet again...Is there really absolutely no way to speed things up? User:Sturmvogel 66 I accept your terms, I fully accept them, is there really nothing that can be done to speed things up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.130.4 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sturmvogel can present the situation at ANI if he wants, as I said above, but in general, no, the general rule is 6 months of no block evasion. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy I will wait for his response, maybe, who knows...Hope dies last anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.130.4 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, you're not helping your case with your edits today. These need to stop, right now, whatever your address is, or no one is going to argue for you. I was going to start an WP:ANI case to appeal your block just now, but I'm going to hold off until you cease trying to evade your block. And why the hell are you still arguing for listing the fitment of the armament under the builders entry in the infobox? That's exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about above. It's not important enough to be mentioned there, IMO, but it's addressed in the main body, so that should content you, as we've discussed before!
 * Don't worry about your reverted changes; they can always be recovered if we decide that they're worth keeping. But you need to understand that I and other editors will be vetting them for excessive nationalism and general quality, and I'm virtually certain that they will be reedited along those lines. If you can't accept that, then we'll just stop here and be done with you. You can continue to evade the blocks, but we'll just protect the articles that interest you and you won't be able to continue to edit them under any name for more than a few hours before being reverted. Like I said before, you need to control your impatience and take some time away from wiki if you want to continue to contribute.
 * I'm not going to continue this conversation here. If you want to contact me, do so on my talk page, but I'd advise you to take a week or so off first, just to establish good faith.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Photos
I have deleted the photo that was in the article, as the fair use claim is invalid. There are two free images here and here that can be uploaded. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Conway's
Are we sure about her initial main guns? Conway's 1860-1905 puts them at 6.7 inches. Torpilorul (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)