This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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...
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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...
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)