User talk:Parsecboy

	Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please, please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.

I'm sick of watching people complain about the Bismarck article

...want to do something about it? ;) yes, that is a redlink, but you can figure out what I mean. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm of the mind to do something about it. I started rewriting the class article here, but there's still a lot of work to do. Take a look at the bottom thread on the Bismarck talk page, I think I've got a half-way decent idea. What do you think? Parsecboy (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Parsecboy, I believe that user Greglocock is reverting long-standing changes that are not adequately addressed in Talk and that his POV (use of "irrelvant" in edit summaries) is coming through too much. He has, for instance, removed the summary of the ship's attributes (guns, welded armour and stable beam) that are highly relevant to the article and why she was a threat to Allied shipping. There was no need to have sliced away at that paragraph in the way he has done and I'd ask you to restore previous version until Talk clarifies why they *shouldn't go in. User Greglocock seems determined to 'punish' someone (me) for the "criticism of the ship" section having been subjected to intense and correct scrutiny, although I did not initiate that process. You have already updated the paragraph in question to remove "puffery" so it doesn't need further editing. Regards, bigpad (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I lied. A collab may have to wait. :( Rivadavia needs a lot more help, and now my time is severely limited. Sorry dude... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My deepest condolences, Ed. I haven't used dial-up since 7.0 or so. I saw the conversation on your talk page about Rivadavia and Moreno, and they definitely need more help than Bismarck does atm. I can probably lend a bit of a hand with them; in addition to Conway's 1906-1921, Hore's Battleships of World War I has a bit of information on the ships as well. Just let me know :) Parsecboy (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice. :) The Argentine Navy's site doesn't seem to have a page devoted to the battleships like Brazil, which is rather disappointing...I'm stuck with Whitley's BB's of WWII, NYT archives, and whatever the NHC wants to give me (I'm assuming that they have stuff; the ships were built in the U.S., after all). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Page move

Hi, I moved the page of the United States Mint to a new title after a quick look at the official website. After checking the "About us" section a bit more closely the move seemed wrong, so I moved it back. But I guess some fixing is needed as the edit summary reads "moved over redirect". Would you do it please if you have time? Squash Racket (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, everything looks to be in order to me. The edit summary was "moved over redirect" because you moved the page back onto the redirect you had just created, so there's nothing wrong with that. Let me know if you need anything else :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nassau class battleship

Hi Parsecboy, I saw this picture on the Nassau class battleship page: File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-37, Linienschiff "SMS Rheinland".jpg. I'm wondering if that isn't actually a Kaiser class battleship. By comparison, this is a picture of Kaiser: [1].

Best regards, Orpy15 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You sure do have a knack for finding these! I'm pretty certain you're correct. The bridge structure is completely different from File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-23, Linienschiff "SMS Rheinland".jpg (and appears to be exactly the same in the GWPDA photo you linked, which, by the way, can be uploaded to Commons if it isn't there already, since it's a Bain collection photo). Another hint is the boats and cranes over the side of the ship; those aren't present on the Nassau class ships. It's a shame though, since this will cut the number of photos in the Nassau class article down to three. I guess on the other hand, this is another one for the Kaiser class, once I get around to expanding it :) Oh, I finally finished Helgoland class battleship this morning, would you take a look at it and see what needs fixing? Thanks a lot :) Parsecboy (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy, I took a look at the Helgoland class article. Great work on that. The only thing I really changed is the postwar section. I'm reasonably sure Ostriesland never went to Scapa Flow. But otherwise, excellent work.

So let's talk about more pictures! I saw this one: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1971-017-32, Besetzung Insel Ösel, Linienschiff und Zeppelin.jpg. I'm wondering if that isn't actually Grosser Kurfurst, which I've seen the picture identified as. Note the heavy foretop, the funnel next to the mainmast, and the lack of a visible wing turret. By comparison, this is Goeben [2]

Best regards, Orpy15 (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I had seen that photo identified as Grosser Kurfurst as well, but I thought I'd stick with what I had seen first. But now that you mention it, the wing turret is conspicuously absent. I'll have to dig up the source I saw that identified it as Grosser Kurfurst. I'm home for the weekend, but when I have the time, I'll fix the caption.

As for the Helgoland class article, thanks for the fixes you made. It's always helpful to have another set of eyes (especially someone who's familiar with the topic). The bit about Ostfriesland having been interned temporarily in Scapa and then being moved to Rosyth was mentioned in Peter Hore's book, but if you know it to be false, then I'll go with that (I don't have a reason to put blind faith in his book, since it is pretty much a brief overview). Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hore is a published author, but let me explain why I think he’s wrong. The terms of the Armistice required the internment of 6 battle cruisers and 10 battleships, along with 8 light cruisers and 50 destroyers. Remaining ships were to be disarmed and retained in German ports. [3] The 10 battleships turned out to be the Kaisers, Konigs, and Bayern but not Baden. At the time of the actual internment, 9 battleships and 5 battle cruisers were handed over. [4] [5] Konig had machinery trouble and followed later. Baden was interned in January as a replacement for Mackensen, which the British had apparently thought was complete.

I double checked Dan van der Vat’s The Grand Scuttle, and Ostfriesland never appears in the book. (I recommend it, if you haven’t read it, I think you’d enjoy it.) When the Treaty of Versailles was finally signed, Article 185 provided “Within a period of two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty the German surface warships enumerated below will be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in such Allied ports as the said Powers may direct.” Ostfriesland is one of the enumerated ships, along with the other Helgoland and Nassau class ships. The treaty wasn’t ratified until January 1920, that’s why those ships were all handed over in 1920. The US Navy took possession of Ostfriesland as Rosyth in April 1920.

Hope that helps. I look forward to your Kaiser class article. Best regards. Orpy15 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Hore seems to have misinterpreted the records; the way he phrases it make it sound very much like Ostfriesland had been at Scapa Flow before the scuttle, and was subsequently moved to Rosyth to be taken by the USN. Here's the line:

Interned at Scapa Flow, Ostfriesland was not scuttled with the rest of the High Seas Fleet because she had been moved to Rosyth, prior to being taken over by the USN.

I hadn't thought of it at the time I added that to the article, but it was the first time I'd ever heard of the ship having been at Scapa (and presumably before the scuttling). Yeah, I'll have to get van der Vat's book; maybe my library has a copy of it I could borrow.

The Kaiser class article will have to wait at least a week. I've got a history paper to write this week, and there's still plenty of reading to do before I even start writing. Eventually I'll get to it though :) Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a rule (policy or guideline)...

...that says which rule has precedence: a rule of orthography or a rule of Wikipedia:Most common name? In other words, if all historians, as well as common people, use a name which is not approved by the rules of orthography, would it be okay to use that name as the title of a Wiki article? Surtsicna (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I could probably give a more specific answer if I knew the article in question, but based on what you say, the general rule to follow demonstrated English usage should have precedence over our orthographic rules. Generally speaking, our more specific guidelines shouldn't contradict the common name rule. For example, WP:MOSTM would otherwise prohibit things like iPod or eBay, but because these are so commonly spelled with that capitalization, that's where we have the articles. An example where the common name guideline contradicts (and trumps) a more specific national guideline is Novak Djokovic. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)#Serbian specifies that the Serbian Latin alphabet should be used for all transliterations, which would mean "Đ" instead of "Dj". However, after several discussions, not a single reliable source was presented that documented using the "Đ" in English, so the common name was used. I hope that helps :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Remembering our earlier conversation re history merges...

...does this require one? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:MERGE#Performing_the_merger, it doesn't appear to be necessary. All that's required to keep the GDFL valid is the note in the edit summary that it was merged from the article linked, and JohnInDC did that. So everything should be kosher :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for ARA Rivadavia

On May 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ARA Rivadavia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class articles, GA review

Hey, Parsec, I saw your edit to add three articles to the 'unofficial' official A-Class medal tracking page. From what I can see, it looks like all three of those articles were honored in the A-Class Medal you received in April 2009. I've gone ahead and removed them from the tracking page for now.

Also, I'm just about finished with the GA review for and will have the review up later this morning. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I apparently missed that I got that. Don't I feel silly now? Thanks :)

Thanks for reviewing the Helgoland class article, it's much appreciated. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem (on either account). We all make mistakes from time-to-time. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for actioning my move request Mathematics influence in art → Mathematics and art. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, no problem :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sorting out the orphans. Hope I didn't f... it up too much.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's easy to miss moving all the subpages, I'm sure I've done the same thing :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Diane Abbott

Thanks for trying to deal with the vandalism, but the user you banned seems to have already created a new account under the name MrDomey and has reverted your edit.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Stalker?

:O But seriously: want to collab on O class battlecruiser? I'm going to be getting Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II off Ebay (yay me!). I don't really know when it'll get here; say by Monday or Tuesday? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, I saw Kirill add it :P But yeah, I'll help you with the O class battlecruiser article (monday or tuesday sounds excellent; I've got a 6-8 page paper to write this weekend for my history class, so I won't really be on wiki for too much this weekend). Congrats on the book :) I've had Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II in my wishlist on Amazon for some time now, but it seems no one ever checks that :( I just checked ebay, and it seems there's one copy currently at 34.99, and only one bid. Maybe I'll keep an eye on it :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Ouch @ the paper; good luck there. Don't you dare bid on that book on Ebay, punk. :) Noooo that one bid isn't mine.</sarcasm> :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got about 3 pages done this morning, so I'm not too worried about it. I should be able to wrap it up tomorrow (which will leave sunday open for wiki - yay! maybe I'll get a start on König-class battleship, now that Kaiser-class battleship is more or less done—at least as far as GA-quality is concerned). Oh, that was your copy? I thought you had already won your bid and were just awaiting delivery. I guess I'll have to wait until Christmas for someone to get it for me :( Time to start nagging people to look at my wishlist :D Parsecboy (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You write papers much faster than I do...lucky. :) I'll be mainly off-wiki for tomorrow night + Sunday because of work and other things; I close, then go back the next day at nine. Good luck with Konig; I'll pitch in if I can, but please ping me if/when Kaiser or Konig goes to ACR.

Sorry about the book... Maybe they'll be another soon. :( It just dawned on me that the book isn't a letter though, so it might/probably will take longer than normal to get to my place out here in the boondocks. I'll tell you when I get it. ;) Also, after or simultaneously with O class battlecruiser, I'm feeling that Bismarck might be calling our names... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries about the book, you saw it first, fair and sqaure :) I was tempted to buy a used one for $48.95, but I figured you'd have it, so for anything on here we'd still have access to the book. That and as married life approaches, the expenses keep piling up and it's a little hard to justify spending $50 on something that isn't a necessity, you know?

I'm not a bad writer, if I do say so myself :) I actually wasn't even planning on starting the paper until today, but an idea for the thesis popped into my head, and I wanted to get it down before I forgot it. And then I added another paragraph, and another, and then I was in a groove, and I couldn't stop :)

Well, Helgoland-class battleship is in line for ACR first, but I need to write a development section for that (which I'll also have to write for Kaiser before it's "complete" for ACR/FAC). Maybe I'll get to it this weekend if I can finish the paper early. I was actually thinking that now that we'll have Garzke & Dulin, we can really go to work on Bismarck and the class article. For a ship that famous, it really deserves to be FA, and we can definitely do it. The problem is, the anniversary of the ship's sinking is in 11 days, and I don't think we can "Connecticut" it in that time :) There's always next year for the "relevant date". Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm an okay writer, but I am apparently not good enough. :) If you can't tell your fiancee that it was for a book, try telling her that it was for a dancer or something. Hmm. Maybe that wouldn't work either... ;)

I'll put my eye on them, and will try to help if/when I can. Re Bismarck: I think I started Connecticut with 24 days, and that was a real chore! You know, the 50th anniversary is in two years... :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing I've realized is that writing for Wiki is a lot different from writing for classes (in fact, I had a bit of trouble getting back into essay-writing mode earlier this quarter). Well, I'm concerned with finances too, we just dropped a grand on a new bed, 1,300 on a washer and dryer, and at least another thousand on other furniture things, like a couch, dining room table, etc. And the ~45k I had saved up during my time in the army is significantly depleted :(

Yeah, this is just the paltry 48th anniversary. Heck, we've got plenty of time for Bismarck - we don't even need to start it until late April of 2011! :D Parsecboy (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) - I definitely realized that too... although a significant portion of Lexington-class battlecruiser was 80% of an English 101 research paper. :) Just think though—those are purchases you will never have to make again (at most, you'd think only once more)! @45k - ouch...I wish that I could have saved up half that much through high school, though. I have 5k in my account right now :(
Yeah, what would be the point of getting it to FA now? ;))) Speaking of FA, should we nom Amagi-class battlecruiser? Do you think it is ready? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to start working on my honors thesis this summer, and since I'm a History major specializing in European military history, I'm thinking I'll do something about the High Seas Fleet or the battlecruiser force specifically, considering all the research I've already done :)

Yeah, those things should last a pretty long time, and by the time they need replacing, my interpreter wife will be raking in the dough (I'm under no illusion that as a history professor I'll be making the big bucks) It's crazy how fast you can burn through money though, without even thinking about it; I was attacked by a dog when I was 10, and part of the settlement was that the owners of the dog would give me 16k when I turned 18, and that's been long gone (and it's not like I blew it on a car or something, it gets whittled awayIn fact, I drove a '92 Sable station wagon that cost $500 and had a screwed up blower, so no AC, heat, or defrost—and that ain't fun in the winter, as I'm sure you could imagine :)

Yeah, I think the Amagi article is pretty comprehensive, especially considering the ships were never completed as BCs and there really isn't a ton of information about them in English sources. I was thinking of nom-ing either that or Moltke-class battlecruiser, now that SMS Seydlitz has passed. Is there a rule that you can only have one article at FAC or did I make that up? If so, we can do Amagi first. Parsecboy (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my goal is to be a high school history teacher, so I know the boat you are in. :-) I also know about the money thing; you try to save and it just doesn't work. I've never had anything approaching 18k before though...lol! I also don't even have a car :P —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can nominate it, and I would hope that you could co-nom one and nom another... That rule was enforced rigidly when there was a backlog of 61–63, but there are now only 48. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I had thought about going the high school teacher route as well, but I decided I'd rather be a college professor (although I might regret that decision when it comes time to do my PhD dissertation :)

Maybe that'll work, although if not, I won't be too upset, I'm not in that much of a hurry anyways. Although, once the Moltke class article passes, I'll just have to get the Goeben article at least to GA for the FT. I guess we'll see if they let it slide. Parsecboy (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a dissertation would be horrible. :)

Go ahead and nom Moltke class; I'll wait a few days and then nom Amagi class. Good luck with Goeben and please ping me if you want help; there is some interesting history to that ship that I wouldn't mind reading/researching about. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll nom Moltke class tomorrow; now that my history paper is pretty much done, I can start working on another article :) Maybe it's finally time to start on Goeben Parsecboy (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I can't work as fast as you. :))) I need breaks or serious changes of topic to get me going again! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Goeben is in a way a change of topic, since she was never in the North Sea stuff during the war. So I won't have to write about Jutland and the rest for the 10th time :) The only (minor) problem is the article is fairly long, so there won't be a DYK for this one. On the other hand, it's not in terrible condition, so it won't be as much work as starting from scratch. Parsecboy (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) - yeah, you get to write about how she didn't move for years on end :PPP —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I know, right? I was making a few final alterations to my paper (it's due tomorrow morning), and it dawned on me that a non-native English speaker might really misunderstand "Pacific War", if it was out of context. What? A peaceful war? Huh? :D Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you better hope your prof is a native speaker then, eh? ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he is. Oddly enough, his name is Mansoor, which I thought would have been an Indian name, but apparently it's not.

So Moltke class is up at FAC now. As I recall, you didn't actually review it for ACR, you just did the technical report. Someone getting lazy??? :P Parsecboy (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I looked through all of your refs and sources before doing posting "references and sources look good". :P But *sigh* I'll review it ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever :P And what happened to the "17" in your signature? Trying to look more professional? Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha no :P (a) there were complaint(s?) about my signature in my RfA. I just finally got around to changing it... (b) I had that sig for a long time and (c) I was sick of the cursive :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Duplication USSR-Polish casualties

No that comes from Ludskie Poteri, the Soviet total is for 1939 borders. The figure does not include losses for the Annexed territories of Poland, the Baltic states and Romania that are included in the Russian figure of 26.6 milllion. Poland also includes losses in the eastern zone in its total of 5.6 million. To avoid a duplication we need to include these losses only once.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Yes P 20/21 I have the Erlikman book if you have any questions, you could also borrow it through interlibrary loan from the Library of Congress.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to inquire in the future if you have any questions on WW2 casualties, that page is the tip of the iceberg on my bookshelves. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

AOT assessment

Parsecboy -- Thanks for the perspective. Hartfelt (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Kaiser class

Hi Parsecboy. Great work on the Kaiser class article. You work fast. Can I ask a question, you stated that the ships "turned quickly initially, but suffered from severe torque at a hard rudder." What does that mean?

Also I'm a little leery of the 55,000 shp figure given in the infobox. That's Kaiser's trial number, right? I don't think any of the other ships in the class came close to that on their trials. The Germans had a habit of really forcing the boilers on trials, particularly on the turbine powered ships, particularly Kaiser and Von der Tann. I'm not sure why, exactly, but I assume to try to impress the British. The British were less apt to do it, but they did it with their battlecruisers, notably Princess Royal and Tiger. The French and Italians used to do it too, during the 30's, mostly by running their ships extremely light on trials.

It's true that German battleships and battlecruisers were probably consistently faster than their design speed, but I think it's important to distinguish design performance from trial performance, because the difference is a real one. But that's just a nitpick. I'm not here to criticize. Nice work on that article. Orpy15 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Orpy. Groner's states that the ships were "...responsive to the helm, with fast initial turn but severe torque effects and speed loss at hard rudder..." I don't really understand what is meant; the ships heeled up to 8 degrees at hard rudder, but so did the Königs, and they're not described similarly, so I don't think the torque refers to bad heeling.

Yeah, the 55,000 figure is the trials number, and only Kaiser actually got that high; Friedrich der Grosse, the next fastest, only hit slightly over 42,000 on trials. When I rewrite an article like this that's been around for a while, I tend to forget to update the infobox. I changed it to the design figure of 28,000 shp, which, all things considered, is closer to the "operational" figure. One thing I've noticed about the German ships of the period is that even though they could be run faster than their design speeds, things like low quality coal never allowed for those speeds in combat, so it's sort of irrelevant. Thanks for catching that! Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm no Bellhalla :) He cranked out a good topic that contains 7 articles in about 2 weeks. He pretty much dominates WP:MILCON. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Pretty much"? No, he does. :P I'm pretty sure that he has won in every month since last August with the exception of October...which he should have won anyway, because I included the since-redirected articles USS Philippines (CB-4), USS Puerto Rico (CB-5) and USS Samoa (CB-6)... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's very true; he's got about 3 times the number of points as the next editor, and 160 articles, which is insane. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'm not sure what the means. Maybe it's a translation issue, or maybe it means torque effect on the rudder when it's hard over. Oh well.

I didn't realize that someone else left that number in the infobox. Though it certainly didn't seem like the sort of thing you'd do. I also didn't realize you guys had contests. Makes me tired just thinking about it! Best regards, Orpy15 (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Five Mrs. Buchanans

Hi, it seems that the image you linked to here has just been deleted... Could you maybe find it somewhere on the web? I tried googling for the logo of the series but didn't find anything right away. Thanks! Jafeluv (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I found the image on Google, interestingly enough, still in the Wikimedia upload system. I posted the link on the talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey man wanted to stop by and say thanks for helping me with the new image for the M1 Abram article, I accidentally screwed up the caption and you fixed that fast for me. I just wanted to show you my other work where I made a transparent picture: M4_Carbine, And I was wondering if you think its possible to start some type of group for military articles that makes the images in the info box's transparent. Because some have crappy pictures or people leave the background white. Anyways just wanted to say thanks for your help. ZStoler (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad to be able to help. I did some poking around WP:MILHIST, and found this group, although it looks like it's more reactive than proactive (like, you can ask one of them to fix up an image, but they don't necessarily go around looking for images to clean up). It would definitely be beneficial to survey articles and look for images that can be improved like you did for M1 Abrams (although quite a long project, considering the number of military articles). Maybe the best way to go would be to make a list of "core" weaponry articles (probably the ones that would benefit from the type of work you did for Abrams) and start from there. For example, the current lead image for the MP5 article is File:Swiss MP5.jpg; it's not transparent and in .jpeg format. Another one is the main photo for AK-47: File:AK-47 type II Part DM-ST-89-01131.jpg. That one actually needs a lot of work; only some rudimentary clean-up was done from the original version (there's still green between the barrel and gas tube/piston). However, it might be better to start from a different image; the magazine is rusty, the rifle just looks really beat-up. Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the best way is to create a category and throw articles into it that need to have their main image have a transparent background for a info box, this could also be used for articles about bullets for example. My question to you is, would it make to many wikipedians angry to start throwing articles into a category for image cleanup, Like I said? ZStoler (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be a problem. There's all kinds of article maintenance categories, so I don't think this should be objected to all that much. Although, you never really know how people will react until you do it; I'm sure there'll be someone upset with it, if not only because it's a change and they weren't consulted first. As long as we don't ruffle anyone's feathers, everything should be ok. Parsecboy (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good project, is there anything we need to do before creating that category? ZStoler (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just create it. Maybe something along the lines of Category:Military articles with images that need cleaning or similar? Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, When I get time I will start this project, but I need to work on some school related stuff this week. ZStoler (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That works for me; I've got Moltke-class battlecruiser at WP:FAC, so I'll probably be a little busy with that this week as well. Good luck on your school work! Parsecboy (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kaiser class battleship

On May 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kaiser class battleship, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Prinzregent Luitpold

Hi Parsecboy, another quick question. Is is possible that the range figure for Prinzregent Luitpold, 2,000 nm at 12 knots, was just the designed range on diesel alone? Orpy15 (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Orpy. Groner's gives the figures for Prinzregent Luitpold specifically as "7,200/12 with diesel; 2,000/12 without", compared to 7,900 at 12 knots for the other four. Parsecboy (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but take a look at your copy of Conway's. I know Groner is an excellent source but it's curious.... Orpy15 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a little odd that at 2/3 the propulsion power of the other ships, Prinzregent would have less than 1/3 the range. Normally I would trust Groner without much question (since it's all from German navy archives), but this does seem a little off. Do you have any other books that might be able to shed some light on the issue? Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of what I'm thinking. There two parts, actually. The part involving the 2,000 mile range is, possibly, just a translation issue. Conway's gives that number, but says that's the diesel alone, rather than steam alone. I'm trying to get a hold of the German version of the Groner book. Not that I speak German, but I know someone who does.

The second half of the issue is that Conway's gives the range for the three turbine ships as 6,000 nm at 12 knots, while Groner gives it as 7,900 nm, while both seem to agree that the designed range for Prinzregent Luipold was 7,200 nm at 12 knots. That strikes me as hinky, and a lot more troubling. The diesel was supposed to be more economical, not less. And even without the diesel, it still doesn't make sense. Prinzregent Luitpold's range should still be greater, not less, because the less powerful machinery is more economical at the 12 knot range, especially since direct-drive turbines are involved. Slower, but more economical. And the difference in bunker capacity is only about 10 percent.

I'm not sure what else to look at that would be better than the Groner book, because like you said, I'd normally assume that was the best source. I'm trying to get a copy of the old Preston book, that might shed a little light. I checked the Breyer book, but it wasn't helpful at all. I wish I had access to a copy of the Greissmer book, but I don't. I'm sure the definitive answer is in there. Oh well, I'll look and get back to you when I know something. Best regards, Orpy15 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I had noticed the discrepancy between the standard ranges for the Kaisers as well. Actually, if you look at the thread below this one between Simon Harley and I, he said he has Greissmer's book on the battleships. I'll ask him to check it out, and hopefully that will give us an answer. Parsecboy (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy, I got a hold of two books. The Preston book, Battleships of World War I, says this for range: "9500 miles at 10knots (Prinzregent Luitpold could steam 2000miles at 12knots under Diesel power only)"

The German version of the Groner book is kind of ambiguous. In the listing for Prinzregent Luitpold's range, it says:

7200/12

m.Diesel

2000 12

allein

As best I can tell from online dictionaries, allein translates to alone, single, unescorted, solo, something like that. What's your take? Orpy15 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Update, I talked to my German speaking friend, and he translates this as 7200/12 with diesel, 2000/12 without diesel. So it's not a translation problem after all. That said, I have to go with the other sources on this particular issue. It just doesn't make sense that a ship of that era could have such a short range as to be essentially useless. Groner gives the same figure for Sachsen, and the coal bunkerage for Sachsen is only 200 tons less than than Baden and Bayern, 3200 versus 3400. But Sachsen's range is still listed as 2000 miles without the diesel, versus 8000 miles for Baden and Bayern. Just doesn't add up. Orpy15 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the one problem with Groner's is that there was significant disruption to his work during the Second World War (including the destruction of a significant portion of archival data). This could possibly just be a mistake related to that. It's probably best to go with the other sources, as you say, since it just doesn't make sense. A ship with 66% of the engine power should logically have 66% of the range, instead of about 25%. I'm away from most of my books this weekend, but on Tuesday I'll be able to make the necessary changes. Thanks for doing the extra digging :) Parsecboy (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help! Best regards, Orpy15 (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tarrant

Just a word of warning. Of late I've been noticing major flaws in Jutland: The German Perspective. I am forced to conclude that Tarrant either can't check his facts for s*** or just makes things up when it suits him. You may have noticed not so long ago a corrective edit I made on Seydlitz regarding Agincourt having supposedly sighting her at night. Tarrant implied (p. 215) that Agincourt made a positive identification of her and you not unnaturally repeated it in your article.

Just now I was looking through Kaiser class, and this section caught my eye:

"At 17:50, Kaiserin and Kronprinz Wilhelm opened fire on the leading battleship of the 5th Battle Squadron, Barham, at a range of 21,000 yards. Two hits were registered, although it is not known which of the two German ships scored them. Nevertheless, the hits destroyed Barham's auxiliary wireless transmitter, filled lower compartments with smoke, and set on fire several cordite charges in one of the 6 inch gun emplacements. Shell splinters also penetrated deep into the conning tower and into the armored deck, resulting in heavy casualties. The sustained fire by Kaiserin and Kronprinz had led the British to believe the combined fire of the German fleet was being concentrated on the 5th Battle Squadron."

This time Tarrant is just being plain puddled. Barham is acknowledged by everyone else to have been hit during this time by Derfflinger and no one else. And there were four hits, not two. And it was the lower conning tower which was hit by splinters, totally separate from the main conning tower above decks. And Tarrant's "serious" casualties and I presume your "heavy" casualties are somewhat wishy washy. 26 men were killed on Barham during the battle and 37 wounded, which some would characterise as heavy and some (like me) wouldn't.

I know Tarrant is a handy source and in your impressive line of editing you'll have little else to rely on in many cases, but if possible for God's sake use something else if only to corroborate it. I'm afraid this is just me being an utter pain in the arse - being critical rather than constructive. It drives me round the bend when I have to check every damn reference to make sure it's right. Anyway, I'll end my p*ss and moan now. Keep up the good work. Your output of quality editing never ceases to shame me! --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I had noticed your fix to the Seydlitz article. It disappoints me to learn that Tarrant's book isn't quite as reliable as I thought it to be. I just checked Bennett's The Battle of Jutland for the information on Barham; it states that the ship was hit twice during the run to the south by the German battlecruisers, but it doesn't say which ship was responsible. Massie's Castles of Steel (on page 602) is even less specific (and a different number of hits on Barham--this time 6 hits). He doesn't even say whether it was the BCs or BBs that did the damage, although he does say that Barham and Valiant were engaging the battlecruisers while Warspite and Malaya fired at the battleships, so that would make it more likely that one of the battlecruisers were responsible. He does say on p. 603 that Von der Tann hit Barham once at the start of the run to the north. Those are the only three books I've got about Jutland; I do have Bennett's Naval Battles of the First World War, but it isn't as specific about things as the more focused book.

I guess part of the problem with trying to cover something like Jutland is that at times, things were all going on at once, and different observers recorded different pieces. I'll just have to be a little more careful when I use Tarrant. I'm working on learning German (towards the eventual goal of doing my doctorate on something related to the German navy, which would require going through the German archives—yeah, it's sort of a pipe dream right now), but once I'm fluent—which won't be for some time—I can check German sources, which should (hopefully) be more accurate.

Thanks for letting me know about Tarrant's deficiencies. I'd rather know that he makes mistakes sometimes instead of erroneously thinking his work is 100% correct, you know? Oh, and stop it, you're making me blush. And you're no slouch yourself! I couldn't conceive of attempting a major battle article like Jutland. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, really shouldn't have said "everyone else" in relation to the hits on Barham. I don't have Bennett but he's referring to the two hits made after twenty past four; one from Von der Tann at 16:23 and one attributed to Lützow shortly after. I have Massie on the shelf next to me but I have such a low opinion of his book I wouldn't consult it anyway. Al my details on this are from Campell's Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, which is widely hailed as the best technical guide to the battle. Next ranked there's Gordon and The Rules of the Game, and while he sometimes disagrees with Campbell's conclusions, with Derfflinger making the four hits on Barham around 17:00. Gordon's book is essentially one long sneer at the Royal Navy but occasionally he gets things right in a very emphatic way.

Give me a buzz when you do get to a decent standard of German. I've got a few interesting German reports on my computer, which I can occasionally follow (Latin and French do come in useful, somehow!). I've also got Greissmer's book on German WWI BBs and Koop's book on German BCs in PDF. Alas, all in German, but the pictures and tables are handy as hell.

Now you're making me blush. Just the other day someone told me that my userspace was like a Royal Navy wikipedia within a wikipedia. Not sure whether that was an insult or a compliment! I just need to push some stuff out and get it done - the urge to get some DYKs is growing. Cheers, --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know Massie's is pretty much crap as far as scholarly work goes, but I thought I'd give it a look just to see what he had to say. I was actually going to ask you what the best books for Jutland are, so I might go about getting them. And dang, I can get a used copy of Campbell's book on Amazon for US$17. I was afraid it was going to be too expensive to rationalize buying. And Gordon's book is only 13.41. At prices like these, who can pass it up? Hopefully I'll get them early next week.

I'm only in my second quarter of German, so it'll probably be a year at least before I even approach the level of fluency to read what I want to read (and even then I'll need a translator for the more technical terms, alas). I have Greissmer's book on the German BCs, so between the two of us, we've got the whole fleet (or at least the big ships, anyway). I'd love to see Koop's book sometime.

Yeah, I don't know if that was supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing. I certainly see no problem with it (even though my interests here are more on the "other side of the aisle"). Yeah, I didn't really do much with the DYKs either until I got a couple in the span of a day or two (one was actually by accident; someone nominated an article I had created, and I didn't know about it until I got the "DYK medal" thing). Feel free to let me know if you want help with anything! Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of Tarrant, I've found some of his stuff is very cursory and often wrong in detail. I've read Campbell's book on Jutland and found it quite excellent. It should probably form the foundation of our accounts of Jutland. See [6] for a comparative review of the three. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Campbell's book is on its way, I should have it by Monday or Tuesday :) I only read the first couple of paragraphs of that review, but it looks interesting; I'll read the whole thing later today. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one with a poor opinion of Tarrant. Campbell is the definitely the best, but as much as I hate to say it you need Gordon to balance some of it. Koop is a good read on the German BCs (even when you can't read German), but I've heard from people in the know that some of his stuff is very dodgy in places - at least Greissmer demonstrates that he's gone through the records at the BAMA archives. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Hey,

I noticed that the file File:Yes check.svg had a GNU license, but this file is so simple that I am pretty sure it doesn't qualify for a copyright... I wanted to use this file on a wiki I am building but all of the content on my wiki is public domain... So is this a mislabeled file?

ZStoler (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The threshold of originality for copyright in the US states that typefaces and geometrical objects can't be protected by copyright. One could probably make the argument that the check mark falls into the former category, and so it's not eligible to be released under the GNU license; it's automatically in the public domain. But by no means am I a copyright expert, so you may want to get a second opinion. You could ask the question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where people more versed in copyright law than I can help you. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Fleur24

Hi, I was going to issue a conflict of interest warning for this user, as it appears they may be editing the page Dawn Butler from A House of Commons IP address (someone made a comment from that Ip on my talk, then Fleur24 replaced it almost immediately afterwards with a similar comment). However, I would like to prove this 100% before making accusations as there's obviously still a very small chance it's a different person. Could you possibly check please? There's enough one-sided editing for me to be able to issue an warning to Fleur24 as it is, but would like to address all the possible conflicts and all the evidence in one go. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It does seem a little suspicious, since the IP address has never edited the Dawn Butler article, yet the user claims to have been working on it (although it could have been under a different IP or even a registered account other than Fleur24). You might try asking Fleur if s/he is the IP address, and if the answer is yes, then issue the warning about the conflict of interest issue. I hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the advice, much appreciated. However assuming Fleur24 was covering up her IP address and previous edit by deleting replacing it, then she's hardly going to admit to doing so voluntarily. I asked you because I thought admins were able to see IP info, but i guess she would need warnings first for you to do so, so perhaps I was a bit premature? I think I will just issue a general warning first and try to restore some of the content to the Dawn Butler article. Thanks once again.--Shakehandsman (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. No, only Checkusers can see the IP addresses behind registered accounts. It is a little early for a case to be filed (like we did for the user who was disrupting the Diane Abbott article), so a general warning is the way to go for now. Best of luck! Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A hide/show box

Hello! I assume you can do me a little favour, if you are not too busy. The Template:Infobox Royalty needs to be edited, to reduce its length. Could you please put all the succession elements (predecessor, successor, reign, regent, coronation) into a hide/show box? You can see how the Spanish did it on es:Plantilla:Ficha de monarca. The infobox of Eleanor of Aquitaine article, for example, has three succession parameters. If we could make them collapsable, the infobox would be significantly shorter, but nothing would be lost. Surtsicna (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help you, but I really don't know much about template coding. The only ones I've ever made are pretty simple navigation templates that I basically just copied and pasted (like {{Moltke class battlecruiser}} for example). I've never tried to mess with an infobox. This might be able to be formated into the infobox, but I've never tried it, so I guess just try it and see :)

This is a kind of hide/expand code

Put in whatever fields here.

I hope that works. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tried, but the hide/expand and everything in it goes out of the template. Do you know a template expert? If you don't, I'll try to figure it out myself. You've already helped me a lot. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that Kevinalewis (talk · contribs) is pretty good with templates... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Doesn't Kirill do a lot of the template stuff over at MILHIST? If Kevin isn't able to help, maybe he can. Parsecboy (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Army of the Tennessee article

Parsecboy: Thanks for your earlier message about the AOT article. I have further revised/expanded/footnoted, and Ed suggests that I list it for MilHist peer review. I can't quite figure out how to do that, since the article doesn't seem to have the banner template that the instructions anticipate. Anyway, would appreciate any thoughts you have about how to go forward. Page views fot this article seem quite low and getting it more attn would be nice after all the work it now reflects. Thanks again Hartfelt (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Parsecboy: I have succeeded in asking for peer review, thanks to your guidance. It was a close thing, though. Even with your guidance, I had a hard time figuring out exactly what to do, as it certainly is not very intuitive. I will be interested to see what kind of comments I get. When is a peer review considered to be "over"? Thanks again. Hartfelt (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Some photos which may interest you...

Apologies if you've seen this forum thread full of photos of the Imperial German Navy before, but I've only just come across it. Basically everything from page 8 onwards is gold. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 00:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't seen that before. A lot of those photos I've never seen before, and they're all pretty decent size. I wonder what the copyright status of those photos are? I'm not too familiar with copyright law in Germany. Maybe I'll do some digging tomorrow and see if we can use them here. Parsecboy (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the book those photos are from was published in 1912. That surely meets {{PD-US}}, right? Parsecboy (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am indirectly in touch with the chap who uploaded them so I'll see if I can get his bibliography. How many pages have you gone through? There's a raft of WWI stuff there which surely can't be from 1912! (By all means, if some are from 1912 then they'll be fine under PD-US so long as they stay on the English wikipedia) --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The maps of battles are obviously not from 1912, but the earlier ships (like the pre-dreads that didn't see much active service during the war) are most likely from the book TBR mentioned. I went through a bunch of the pages, past the collection of airship photos, but I haven't seen the whole set of pages yet. I'd really appreciate if you can get the publication information from the uploader. Even if we can only use them here on en.wiki, that'd be a great thing. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

War crimes defn

There was no such thing before WWI; but such events, of which there are many, are covered in the German War Guilt Clause of the Treaty of Versailles. You may go to editing your German articles now. CJ DUB (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

On a completely different note, here is a page that may interest you: [[7]]

Versailles is a primary source; Wiki articles should rely almost entirely on secondary sources. It is also a highly biased document; using it to state what is and is not a war crime is about as NPOV as using a speech by Hitler to rewrite the article on Jews to conform with his whackjob opinions. If you have reliable secondary sources, fine. But I've never seen any of the bombardments of the English coast during World War I referred to as war crimes (and I've done plenty of reading on the subject). Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The raids violated the provisions of the Hague Convention, and in the parlance of the time would have been called a a "war crime", even though the international term was not recognized until the Geneva Conventions. Try: A HISTORY OF THE WAR BY H. C. O'NEILL. As per Geneva, the attack on the coastal town would be defined as a war crime.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; (iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; (v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives; CJ DUB (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also discussed as a violation of the Hague Convention 1907 (Sec IX, Ch I), that Germany signed, in the book "War crimes", by David Chuter CJ DUB (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does O'Neill say on the subject? I tried searching in Google Books, but haven't been able to find it. Do you have the ISBN (or can you just type in the relevant line(s)?)

Are the Geneva conventi ns retroactive? I don't know (and the articles on Wiki don't say one way or the other), and it's not mentioned here: Ex post facto law (it lists ex post facto laws. If they aren't retroactive, then the Geneva conventions are irrelevant to this question.

Another thing to consider: were there any prosecutions/punishment as a result of Versailles on the captains of the ships/Hipper? If so, that would warrant mentioning in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Hague Conventions outlined war crimes, and specifically identified that act as FORBIDDEN. That should be enough. Germany signed the damn thing then found excuses how that section was irrelevant. lol...What gallant sailors attacking holiday towns with 11" shells. There is a list somewhere of all the war crimes recognized by Versailles. They number in the hundreds. CJ DUB (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: the Hague Convention of 1907; the treaty forbids the bombardment of undefended towns; Hartlepool was a defended town, so only the bombardments Scarborough and Whitby qualify as violations of that specific section of the Hague. There is still significant gray area in other areas of the convention (specifically, article 2) that one could argue that the bombardments of the other two towns. Regardless, your and my interpretations of the Hague are irrelevant; we cannot take primary sources and say what does and does not fit—that's original research. We need reliable secondary sources stating that the bombardments of Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby were war crimes.

Another thing: why is this raid singled out? What about the bombardments of Yarmouth and Lowestoft? Again, what Versailles has to say on what war crimes Germany committed is about as valuable to serious scholars of the war as the conclusions of the Scopes Trial are to serious scholars of science. Does the list of war crimes of Versailles doesn't include the mining of international waters by the Royal Navy? That's just as much of a violation of international law as unrestricted submarine warfare is.

I noticed you added this book as a citation for the paragraph. However, while searching in Google Books, I cannot find one mention of Scarborough, Hartlepool, or Whitby. Where and on what page(s) is the raid discusssed? Again, we cannot apply treaties and definitions to actions and then label them as either being within out outside of those treaties/definitions. We need reliable sources stating so. WP:V and WP:OR are non-negotiable. Parsecboy (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "gallant sailors attacking holiday towns with 11" shells"; apparently when the British rained hell on Dresden and Hamburg and when the US XXI Bomber Command razed undefended Japanese cities, that was perfectly alright. A half a million dead Japanese and upwards of 300,000 dead Germans is surely nothing compared to a 137 dead Englishmen. Parsecboy (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I'm trying to explain to you: a couple years ago, we had a discussion at World War II over whether the USSR was either an ally of Germany from 1939-June 1941, a co-belligerent during that period, or no real relationship (or at least none that could be reliably sourced). One user was pushing the viewpoint that the two were allies, by citing the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement and the fact that they acted in concert to conquer Poland. Eventually, that user left, and the discussion turned towards the idea of co-belligerence. Several users (myself included) argued that a standard dictionary definition of the word "co-belligerent" aptly applied to the situation between Germany and the USSR during their period of cooperation. However, others opposed based on the argument that what we were doing was a violation of WP:SYN and WP:OR (since we could not provide a mainstream historical work that supported our argument); that is, we were taking a source that says one very specific thing, and applying it to other situations. That is indeed violating the prohibition of synthesizing new material out of disparate, unrelated sources, and in effect, original research. That is exactly the same thing you are attempting to do by framing the bombardment of Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby with your interpretation of the Hague Convention of 1907. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

O class battlecruiser

...the rewriting has begun! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I won't be up too much longer (I have an early history class tomorrow, and I needs my beauty sleep) :P I'll get to writing the design stuff from Groner's tomorrow afternoon. Parsecboy (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha yeah, I have to work at six, so I'm off to bed as well. "\:-) Don't feel obligated to do it tomorrow if you need to do something else; I'm thinking that completion will take me a little while due to my limited intenet access... :/ —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll probably finish up M class cruiser (the "O"s little sister, I guess :D ) first, and then I'll get to the BCs. You have to be up in 6 hours? Get to sleep, young man! :P Parsecboy (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I plan on rewriting/sourcing the "development" section in the M class article tomorrow (which I'm thinking is what you're concerned about here). I'll let you know when I get it done. Parsecboy (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::That's fine. I wonder if the M's would have served with the O's (ala Bismarck and Prinz Eugen).....hmmmm. Will have to do some research on that. Yes, I have to be up in 6^1/2 hours. Young dudes can do that, you geriatric old guy. ;)

Re assessment: you are correct. :) Will watch and reassess or drop me a line when you are done. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Groner's says the M's were designed solely for commerce raiding, so unless the O's went out to raid convoys too, they probably wouldn't have seen much of each other. Hey you whippersnapper, come over here so I can smack you with my cane. I can't run like I used to :P Parsecboy (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And...done re: the M class citations :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)