User talk:Orpy15

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Lisatwo 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

re:SMS Yorck
I'll let the information stay for now. The post on the forum stated that he was using archival documents. The newspaper article you found about Pieper's court martial would be good to include in the article, to source the statement that he was courtmartialed. Regards, Parsecboy 23:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article from the NYT stated that the reason he was court-martialed was for "disobedience of orders". Perhaps this is sufficient to source the other line? Parsecboy 01:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Akagi and Kaga
Construction of these two ships was deceptive. For these two ships main armament barbettes were concealed by wooden flight deck. Flight deck of each was designed to be quickly removed for conversion into battleship in the event of war. Later refit shortly before Pearl Harbor raid removed turret barbettes to increase their aircraft storage capacity because Japanese Navy high command recognized aircraft carrier as equal to battleship. I am happy to help you understand this. I will review articles. If you need source I will find it. This is from early days of my reading about war. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop revert war on Japanese navy articles. I have excellent source entitled "Gunkan Mekanizumu Zukan: Nihon no Kôkû-bokan" ("Warship Mechanisms Picture Book: Japanese Aircraft Carriers") written by Hasegawa Tôichi, published by Grand Prix, Tokyo, 1997 (Japanese language text). Many superb diagrams with text in Japanese language. Please read message I leave for you above on December 20. Not all information available on Internet. I try to provide information which is not yet on Internet. We work together yes? Please respond. It is magnificent reliable source book. Many sources say Akagi and Kaga rebuilt in 1935-38 to increase aircraft capacity from ~60 to ~90 aircraft. This is easily proven using Internet sources. Where did this extra storage space come from? "Warship Mechanisms Picture Book: Japanese Aircraft Carriers" is showing diagrams. Early conversion concealed main armament turret barbettes with wooden flight decks. Rebuilt in 1935-38 by stripping off flight deck and removing barbettes. Then building new hangar deck where barbettes once stood. Then adding new wooden flight deck on top. Do you understand? Please post answer. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Orpy. I have answered all your questions. I hope you are satisfied with these answers and extensive discussion on J-Aircraft forum. I encourage you to draft modified statement on Akagi and Kaga reconversion plans for addition to these articles. This should be something you find acceptable. Please follow recommendation of Dan Kaplan at J-Aircraft forum. Thank you very much. We work together yes? Shibumi2 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Standard displacement
Ahh, I'll have to keep that in the back of my mind. Thanks for the note. And by all means, if you can improve the articles I've created, go right ahead. Parsecboy (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

SMS Gneisenau
You certainly seem to be correct; the amidships turrets are a dead give-away. a photo of Gneisenau, and there are certainly no turrets amidships. I listed the error on the Bundesarchiv noticeboard on Commons; they should fix the file name shortly. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

SMS Roon
Hi, Orpy. I've got a question for you. As you know, I've been working on SMS Roon for some time now. I took it to get assessed for B-class, and the reviewer pointed out a couple of areas that needed sourcing. I fixed the ones I could, and there's only one line remaining: this line about the ship having been decommissioned by 1911, that you added a couple of years ago. I was wondering if you remembered where you saw it, source-wise. The only thing I've been able to find online is this website, but I doubt it would qualify as a "reliable source". Once we get this last issue resolved, it should pass B-class and probably GA as well. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

USS Randolph page
Where did you learn carrier history? Because the Toconderoga and several other ships of the Essex-class feel into a different class altogether becuase they had longer hulls, as well as a few other changes... stop deleting this information, or I'll report you for vandalism... Magus732 (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I misspelled Ticonderoga... my position, and the previous version of the page, is still valid... Magus732 (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And, if you reread the section you sent me to look at, and I quote, "Thirteen ships were completed to this design (which became known as the Ticonderoga class)". Magus732 (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But, it's not your place to make those changes, where you agree or not... and if you look at the Essex-class infobox at the bottom of Randolph's page, you see that I'm correct... but, by all means, make those changes... I'll be happy to report this to someone willing to sort it out... Magus732 (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But until then, it stays the way it is... otherwise, you'll have to change all the pages... Magus732 (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, let's agree to disagree for now, then we can start a forum to discuss it... that way, other people have a say in what goes in and what comes out... okay? Magus732 (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, it should say "some sources consider them to be separate classes"... but, onto business... where would you suggest we place this discussion? Obviously, someplace related, but high-traffic enough that people will notice the issue's been brought up... Magus732 (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My vote's for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships... that way, everybody'll see it... would you care to draw it up? I'll be right behind you... I'm no good at starting discussion articles for "major" changes like this... Magus732 (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote the introductory paragraphs for nearly all the Essex class ships, so I'm feeling a little protective. I think moving the reference to the ships being long hulls to the construction and commissioning sections is a good idea, bit I object strongly to the deletion of the Ticonderoga class information.  I was not even aware of this distinction before I started writing this stuff.  Personally I think extending the hull out a few feet to make it easier to install 40mm gun tubs is a bit of a stretch for separate class status, but the fact that a fair number of people have decided to refer to the ships as a separate class (including the web pages created by the Navy) is enough to mention that some people consider them a separate class.  By deleting this you have removed useful information and added nothing--Busaccsb (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, read what you wrote, and am convinced. You clearly have done more homework on this than I have, and I agree the Essex class page takes care of this nicely.  Sorry for the cranky tone.--Busaccsb (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nassau
You know, I was wondering why that picture wasn't in the article when I checked the Commons category today :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a great picture, just mislabelled. Apparently, it's Kaiser in the foreground, the imperial yacht Hohenzollern in the background, at Kiel Week in 1914. Best regards. Orpy15 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

SMS Prinz Adalbert
I had understood the SMS Prinz Adalbert to have been lost with all hands. Do you by chance have a reference for your addition to the page (sorry, I know I'm asking about something from a couple years ago . . .) that there were 3 survivors ? --Rwberndt (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries Orpy, I took care of this. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thank you. I'm just not around that much. Orpy15 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Article expansion or new article?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Operation Magic Carpet. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (Using )

USS Franklin D Roosevelt
Please note the invitation to the decommissioning ceremony held on 01 Oct. 1977 http://ussfranklindroosevelt.com/?page_id=2268. The definition of decommissioning is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_decommissioning. The appropriate flags were lowered on 1 Oct. 1977 as per the last deck log http://ussfranklindroosevelt.com/?page_id=7269. I don't know what else is needed for proof. The 30 Sept. date was probably used to show the decommissioning in the previous fiscal year. Larryb442 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel that some concrete clarification is needed as to why the Navy uses the 30 Sept. date when she was actually decommissioned on 1 Oct. If you like we can try to clear this up by email. Check me out here http://ussfranklindroosevelt.com/?page_id=2 as I am the webmaster and defacto historian on the FDR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryb442 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Elsass/Friedrich Carl
Good catch on the misidentified postcard - I (mistakenly) trusted the name printed on the card and didn't look closely at it. But you're clearly right, it's definitely not Elsass. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You can usually trust the old postcards! This is the first time I recall seeing one that was actually wrong. Best regards,  Orpy15 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're usually more accurate, though I did catch this one that was obviously wrong I caught a while back. You'd think that someone would have noticed at the time, especially since those two ships are very easily distinguished. At least in the Essen/Friedrich Carl case they're broadly similar in appearance. Parsecboy (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Gott im Himmel! That's a bad one.  I recently found a book called Die Kaiserliche Marine auf alten Postkarten.  I don't know if you've seen it before, but if not, you might enjoy it.  Orpy15 (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)