Hello. You mistakenly placed the prod notice for this one on my talk page. I am not the creator of the article. In fact, I think it's non-encyclopedic, non-notable, and WP:AUTO. I believe it should be deleted. All best wishes, Qworty (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Qworty. It wasn't a mistake. I could see that, in addition to the User who created the article, you were the only other substantial contributor. I summarised the situation in my edit summary. See my diff. I alerted you to my proposal for deletion so that you had the opportunity to either support the proposal or oppose it. Thanks for your message. Dolphin(t)11:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it was a start, and i can hope that you have a future opportunity to make further revisions. the colloquial references naturally flow from both old text books and the standard stating that encyclopedic styles of writing are acceptable. thxs again.Mkoronowski (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny Tri Nguyen
Hi there Dolphin51. I just wanted to stop by and say "thank you" for your feedback and help on the BLP noticeboard. Looks like the IP has decided to leave that info out of the article. Best, 28bytes (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to be able to help! It looks like your message on his Talk page finally convinced him to leave Johnny Tri Nguyen alone. Dolphin(t)11:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much...
This is great advice. Thankfully, the interactions with Derek farn were cured when I stopped editing the machine and created the machine (mechanical) article. However, you are riight that preparing the changes in my own sandbox is a great strategy. I had not though about sharing those changes before posting them, but I see how that would be helpful as my proposed changes become more extensive. Again, thank you. Prof McCarthy (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with your moving my information to the discussion page.
I would have put it there myself except I could not find it, merely a
statement about its status Puffingbilly (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You suggest the Exploration of the Pacific needs inline citations. As I noted, the article is a summary and overview of many other wikipedia articles which are linked and sources can be found by following the links. I could find only one place that needed a footnote. Perhaps I am missing something.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benjamin! Thanks for visiting my Discussion page. Your explanation of why you don't believe in-line citations are necessary in Exploration of the Pacific is an idea you have developed yourself. It isn't Wikipedia policy. For example, at WP:CHALLENGE it states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable."
If you disagree with the policy at WP:VERIFIABILITY or you think it should be refined in the way you have described, please go to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, argue your case and get the existing policy changed.
At present there is a general principle at Wikipedia that it is the responsibility of the User who adds some material (or creates an article) to supply references and citations. There is no short-cut. It isn't the responsible of the reader to track down these references. If we find the task of supplying references and citations tiresome, uninteresting or too time-consuming, we need to find some other website where we can write things but without having to rigorously identify our sources. Happy editing! Dolphin(t)12:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I invite you to join discussion I have (and enjoy) with Prof McCarthy. And by the way, I noticed you prevously had had an opinion on "net work". Do you find my recent arguments relevant?--Ilevanat (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Dolphin51/Archive 4! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
You're invited to the Canberra WikiMeetup on 20 November 2011
Hi! We're having a Canberra Wikimeetup on 20 November 2011 at Siren Bar in Gunghalin from 2pm to 4pm. It's most just a chance to chat with other local Wikipedians, get a chance to go a different sort of bar (which is reasonably kid friendly, serves real food, and has non-alcholic options), and, if you're interested, learning more about what Wikimedia Australia and local GLAM projects are happening. We'd love to see you and any Wikipedia/Wikimedia/wiki loving friends you have there. --LauraHale (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
This kitten wants to give you gift for all your contributions! Thanks for everything you've done on here Dolphin51. :)
Sorry, I thought I'd notified you that I've placed the article on hold (here) but I haven't. A few changes are needed to the lead and then I'll look at the other things. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 14:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dolph: As you know I have never liked the sailboat part of the center of pressure. The sailboat folks never helped us. So I researched the whole issue and found what was on the page was wrong. Some of it was sitting right on wikipedia. I think you will like it.
Skimaniac (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skimaniac! Welcome back. I didn't see much of you in 2011 so I'm pleased to see you back. I like your addition to Center of pressure. In one day you contributed more than we ever got from the sailboating fraternity.
You will have noticed how quickly someone jumped on your new article, Center of lateral resistance, with a deletion proposal. For that reason, I always start a new article by using one of my personal sandboxes - see User:Dolphin51/Sandbox or User:Dolphin51/Sandbox2. With a personal sandbox we can work away at our leisure and no-one bothers us with criticism or proposals for deletion. Sometimes I have worked on a new article for a month or more before I am ready to paste it into Article-space. It is so easy to open a personal sandbox for yourself - just go to your Userpage, type [[/Sandbox]] and save. It will appear as a red link. Double click on the red link and it will open as a brand new personal sandbox, just waiting for you to start writing whatever it is you want to create.
Hello, Dolphin51. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Not about you, DocKino's behavior persists, so I opened a new WQA and I thought you'd want to be informed)Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up, and thanks for taking on this serial offender. I have had a look at all the latest diffs and if I see an opportunity to contribute, I will. Dolphin(t)01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to endorse an RFC? It has more "teeth" than WQA, but two users need to endorse that we have tried to discuss the issue with him on our talk page, so within 48 hours of my putting up the discussion, I would need you to get on it and give your endorsement as wells. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if DocKino has still some serious ownership issues concerning the Elvis Presley article. He calls a recent proposal "terrible", "ill-considered", "potentially libelous", "clearly biased", and "poorly sourced" and threatens to revert any attempt to bring it into the article claiming that such reversions are not subject to the 3RR. See these comments: [3] and [4]. In my opinion, such a behavior is not acceptable. What do you think? Onefortyone (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dolphin51, as Metal Storm began in, and still is, an Australian based company would that not make any of it's products an Australian invention? I agree that the "MAUL (weapon)" page had no mention that it was an Australian company. I have now added such a mention, and added a cite from an existing source. I have therefore also reverted your edit so that it is again in Category:Australian inventions. Hope this is OK with you. If any more refs are needed please let me know. Regards, 220ofBorg14:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. The article now mentions that the MAUL is manufactured by a Brisbane company so I have no objection to it being re-categorised as an Australian invention.
The article states that the MAUL is a kind of shotgun. Presumably it is not claiming that the shotgun is an Australian invention.
The article also states that the MAUL is manufactured in Brisbane. Can you cite a source that confirms it was actually invented in Australia, or by an Australian? Dolphin(t)21:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Difference in airplane fuel needs going to/from equator
Hi Dolphin51! I'm not trying to be a prick here, but when you wrote: "When analysing these tests, the engine or aircraft manufacturer will calculate the amount of fuel to be allocated to the change from in latitude from take-off to landing.", are you saying that you are pretty sure that they will do so, or that you know for a fact (either from RS or OR) that they will do so? (Nothing wrong with OR on the RD -- just checking.) Cheers. -- 182.232.33.17 (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The best evidence I have is a conversation I had on this subject with a Boeing 747 Captain. That was in 2007. He confirmed the flight crew, and even the operating company, don't get involved with this level of analysis. They do little more than start with the zero-fuel weight, enter planned flight duration, and plug them into the aircraft manufacturer's fuel planning program. He also explained that when the aircraft or engine manufacturer is analysing data from a flight test, or data from a period of operation on a given route by one of their customers, they must determine how much fuel usage is to be expected so they can determine how much was due to unexpected or unexplained factors. The aircraft or engine manufacturer is trying to minimise the "unexpected or unexplained factors" so there is an incentive to fully account for as many factors as possible. All that makes sense to an aeronautical engineer so I have no doubt some aircraft/engine manufacturers operate as I described. So it isn't simply my OR, but it isn't a published source either. Cheers. Dolphin(t)03:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section has archived, but hasn't rolled off WP:RD/S quite yet. I just posted a fairly long response, but it is unlikely to receive much attention at this point. Cheers. ToE20:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting me to your response. You have handled the math analysis for the carousel quite well. Moving from the example of a carousel to the example of an aircraft adds an extra level of complexity because the Earth is a sphere whereas the carousel isn't. Also, Wikipedia's article on Coriolis effect is tailored for a revolving flat surface, such as a carousel, but it doesn't provide a formula to help the reader cope with a sphere. A general formula for Coriolis force suitable for use in all situations, including spheres, is:
where is the time rate of change of radius of the body.
As a result of that extra level of complexity, and the absence of a suitable formula, your analysis of the aircraft flying north or south on the Earth's surface results in some errors. I have added my comments immediately below yours in an attempt to clarify the source of the errors.
Thanks very much for your help in doing the GA review for this article. I don't know if you're aware, but the plan is to get it through the Featured Article process with the aim of getting it on the Main Page for the anniversary of the sinking on 14 or 15 April. If there's anything you can do to get the GA review completed in good time that would be much appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. As soon as I saw the article nominated for GA I perused it briefly and noted the significance of 14 April this year. I also saw that it was a high quality article well on the way to reaching FA. When I finished my work doing the GA review of AgustaWestland AW101 I could see that the Titanic article had still not attracted a volunteer so I jumped in.
I expect we will finish the GA review in another day or two. I was impressed that a number of authors came forward to work on the changes I suggested, and that there was no resistance to my suggestions. Dolphin(t)21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and thanks for the compliment. I have just finished the review of AgustaWestland AW101 and promoted it to GA. With review of the Titanic article I intend to follow the same pattern as I used with the AW101 - see Talk:AgustaWestland AW101/GA1. Dolphin(t)21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one issue remaining. Under the heading 00:05-00:45 - Prepring to evacuate I made the following suggestion:
The 4th para ends with the sentence Smith appears to have kept. It began as an excellent sentence until the bracketed statement shared only by Bruce Ismay and Thomas Andrews was inserted, disrupting its flow. I suggest the bit about Ismay and Andrews should be either worked into the sentence in a more elegant way, or be removed and used to craft a new sentence.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 Australia Beechcraft King Air crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. William15:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
Thank you for the welcome. :)
sprayer_faust 15:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Emden
Let me make this perfectly clear: until you provide a source saying Williamson is wrong, nothing is going to be changed. Please read WP:V and WP:OR. If you cannot accept that, the discussion is over. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diagrams
These diagrams are definitely still not acceptable. So far, I've found about 10 references, and none of them agree with you. I have not been able to specifically check the reference you added, but I have every reason to believe you've either unintentionally misrepresented what they've said, or that the source is incorrect and so misrepresenting the overall literature on the subject.
The diagrams seem to be at least wrongly labelled.
There's a good diagram here: http://www.pilotsweb.com/principle/liftdrag.htm which is similar, but different to the ones there are in the article, in that it is, at least, apparently correct.
Another example, if you check out the diagram at http://jeb.biologists.org/content/180/1/285.full.pdf at page 289 and 291 you'll see that that's not how the lift force works. The aerodynamic force 'F' can act in the direction shown in these diagrams, but not the lift force, ever.
I am sorry, but I am simply unable to reproduce your claims from any source and I've looked at about 10 sources now, and none of them agree, so I therefore request you revert their erroneous reinclusion, otherwise others will doubtless do it for you.GliderMaven (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reference to http://www.pilotsweb.com/principle/liftdrag.htm. Under Prandtl Theory there is a paragraph saying: "The illustration to the right demonstrates how the downwash changes in the airflow and contributes to drag. The airflow (V) is deflected down by the down wash in an angle ε resulting in actual airflow (VREF). Vector ω represents the vertical flow caused by the downwash. Because lift is perpendicular to the direction of the airflow, it is demonstrated that the actual lift (Lmod) is deflected in an angle ε from the original lift(L). The vector D shows an additional drag force that would not otherwise present. This additional drag is called induced drag." That sentiment is identical to the sentiment expressed by Clancy and also in Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators.Dolphin(t)21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also for your reference to http://jeb.biologists.org/content/180/1/285.full.pdf. On page 291 there are three pairs of diagrams. The left-hand diagrams do not show the angle θ; but the center and right-hand diagrams show θ negative and positive respectively. In these diagrams, θ is what Clancy calls the induced downwash angle ε and Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators calls the induced angle of attack αi.Dolphin(t)21:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@GliderMaven: You have written that you have found about ten references and none of them agree with me (agree with the diagram in question?) At the top of the following site there is an explanation of induced drag with a couple of diagrams similar to the diagram in question in Lift-induced drag. This might be helpful.
I think we need to add a disambigulation page for center of pressue in engineering and biomechanics. The new entry seems reasonable but it needs to be another page.
Also, upon futher reflection the difference in static margin vice center of pressure and aerodynmic center arises not just from the symmetric versus cambered wing but also because missile got a large fraction of their lift from the body/nose region.
I agree. Perhaps "Center of pressure (fluid dynamics)" and "Center of pressure (biomechanics)". You have the expertise in the aerodynamics of missiles so feel free to go ahead and make the change you have proposed above. Dolphin(t)11:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if I might be able to ask your further assistance? I've been doing a lot of work on the main article, RMS Titanic (which has had over 2.2 million page views in just the last 90 days!). I'm planning to put it up for GA shortly. Would you be available to do a speedy GA review? Prioryman (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am only part way through. I will eventually work through to the end. I see you have made some of my suggested changes; and chosen not to make others. I agree with all your explanations and I don't have a problem if you reject my suggestions - they are nothing more than suggestions that occur to me as I am reading through. Without having access to all the sources some of my suggestions are going to be less than ideal. Dolphin(t)00:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now finished my informal review. It is a great article and I have enjoyed reading it, and learning from it. Good luck at GA! Dolphin(t)11:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Prioryman. After I saw your last response to my review of RMS Titanic I added a couple of extra comments. That was a week ago but I don’t think you have seen them. They are visible at diff1 and diff2. Regards, Dolphin(t)06:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons version is scanned, which may have been done from the negative (and is easily swapped). Note that the quality of the scanned Commons version is much higher than the print version of the USGS circular. Now I was wondering whether the correctness of orientation of the photo can be determined from the shown parts of the plane from which the photo was taken (e.g. the instrument tube under the wing).
1966 Cessna F172G showing pitot tube under left wing
Hi Crowsnest! I'm pleased to see you are still active, especially when users ask difficult questions on fluid dynamics!
I have looked at the two versions of the photograph of the undular bore in Brazil. I think you are right to focus on the bent tube under the wing. I assume it is a Cessna aircraft, and this is the old-style unheated pitot tube on an early-model high-wing Cessna aircraft. In fixed-wing aircraft it is most common for the pilot to sit on the left of the cockpit, and to have the most complete set of instrumentation, including the airspeed indicator. For this reason I believe the pitot tube is on the left wing, closest to the pilot. This suggests the high-quality image on Wikipedia Commons is the correct one.
I have checked a number of images of high-wing Cessna aircraft on Wikipedia and, where it is possible to identify the pitot tube, it is on the left wing. For example, click on the attached image. When I get to work on Monday I can check my theory to see how universal it is to have the pitot tube on the left wing. If I find anything extra of interest I will let you know. Best regards. Dolphin(t)06:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dolphin, thanks a lot! I asked the right person for this question. Amazing what you can find out in this way. So probably the print version of the report is in mirror. Kind regards, Crowsnest (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I butt in. For the sake of correctness of information, Dolphin is right and the one in the Commons' picture looks a lot like the left wing of a Cessna 172. However, the revealing detail – the bent pipe – is not the pitot tube, but the tank vent instead, which on the 172 (at least on the version P that I fly) is indeed fitted on the left wing only, outboard of the pitot tube. There is a good picture of the two parts at the bottom of this page. --Giuliopp (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guiliopp. Thanks for butting in with that very sound piece of information. The website you supplied shows the bent tube and identifies it as being the fuel tank vent on the left wing. My comments about the pitot tube were incorrect so I'm grateful that at least I got the bit about the left wing right!
I guess I was not abundantly clear. You are not welcome on my talk page. I do not want any further interaction with you. Please disengage. Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree you weren't abundantly clear. You weren't even a little bit clear. Perhaps you could supply a diff to refresh my memory. Best regards. Dolphin(t)11:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your message above you wrote I guess I was not abundantly clear. You are not welcome on my talk page. This is the first occasion on which you have said anything about me not being welcome on your talk page so it is puzzling that you wrote I guess I was not abundantly clear.
Hi Dolphin51,
Please understand that your correction made to the Mach Tuck article regarding speed of sound changes with temperature is misleading. I can see from your description that you are an aerospace engineer, as I am, so you should know that temperature has no direction correlation to changes in the speed of sound. Changes to temperature impact air's speed of sound only when the atmospheric pressure of air is changed. From your wording it suggests to readers that the speed of sound may change by manipulation of temperature alone, which is incorrect.
Thanks,
(MyaaNyuhu (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Hi MyaaNyuhu. Thanks for your message. I am puzzled by your comments because my understanding of the subject is that the speed of sound in a gas is a function of its temperature, not its pressure. My understanding is supported by a lot of the material published at Speed of sound. Please have a look at Speed of sound and let me know of anything you see there that supports your view that the speed of sound in air only changes when the atmospheric pressure changes. Dolphin(t)05:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aerodynamic stall
The article needs a lot of work. For one, it describes the effects of the stall, but not its root causes. It mentions separated flow, but fails to explain how does 'flow separation' causes a drop of lift, instead of ostensibly increasing it (as flow separation usually leads to a drop of pressure in the 'wake' area). The instrumental role of boundary layer and its pressure distribution in influencing the stall behavior are omitted altogether. This could be explained in a related page on flow separation, but one needs to be made aware that it is the boundary layer's, and not 'generic' flow separation that causes the stall and its effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Co6aka (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Co6aka. Thanks for initiating a discussion on this fascinating subject. Wikipedia is a work in progress - every article is capable of being expanded and improved. Many articles are nothing more than stubs. The only limitations on an article being expanded and improved are the need for one or more Users being willing to invest the time and effort; and the need for reliable published sources to support the information being added. Wikipedia does not publish information simply because one or more Users believe it to be correct. All information that is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, must be supported by in-line citations to identify its source. This allows independent verification of that information. See WP:Verifiability.
You obviously have an extensive knowledge of the aerodynamic stall. If you also have the time and energy, and access to appropriate reliable published sources you are at liberty to expand and improve the article. Feel free to use the Talk:Stall (flight) page to discuss your plans with other interested Users, and to ask for their views.
One aspect of the aerodynamic stall that I find a little frustrating is that there are at least two slightly different meanings to the expression. Firstly there is stall of an airfoil in a wind-tunnel - this can be identified by measuring the lift on the airfoil to determine when the two-dimensional section lift coefficient reaches its maximum. Secondly there is stall of an aircraft - this can be identified by measuring the airspeed of the aircraft and its maneuvering load factor to determine when the three-dimensional aircraft lift coefficient reaches its maximum. I could probably clarify and distinguish both of these if I had the time, energy and reliable published sources, but just at present my time on Wikipedia is occupied on other things. Best wishes in your endeavours to expand the article. Dolphin(t)22:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will add some input to the discussion on the related page. I agree there is a lot of confusion on the relationship between purely aerodynamic and physical properties of the aircraft, among many others. The bigger problem I see is that some of the most insightful knowledge does not exist in a clear-cut reference form (such as in papers or textbooks), but is often a result of discussions and correspondence between professionals, professors and students of the subject, which answer the questions left open by articles and textbooks. Unfortunately such (often informal) correspondence cannot be cited or referenced in an academic way.
Hello Dolphin51. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
I think it should be pointed out that the first equation in section 'Compressible flow in thermodynamics' applies only for the case of steady flow. See Landau Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, chapter on Bernoulli equation. For example, in a case of an unsteady potential flow, an additional term will have to be added which is equal to the time derivative of the velocity potential, similarly to what mentioned in the section 'Unsteady potential flow.' The difference between incompressible and compressible case is that in compressible unsteady flow, term pressure/density is replaced by enthalpy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.127.239 (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, congratulations on getting Sinking of the RMS Titanic to Featured Article on 15th April! Secondly, many thanks for the barnstar - it is much appreciated. I enjoyed all the work I did reviewing the two articles, and I learned a lot - it all served me well as I watched the documentaries and news items that accompanied the 100th anniversary of the tragedy. Dolphin(t)22:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belfast
Thanks for the message you left on my talk page. I'm not sure how exactly to reply, other than by leaving a message on your talk page (is that the correct protocol? Apologies if it's not, I don't normally get involved in this stuff). I take your point about my edit to the RMS Titanic page. I should have explained it. I didn't because it's a bit of a mouthful, but, for the record, here is the explanation. Any time anyone mentions Belfast in any context, someone else pops up looking for an argument. (Which is exactly what had happened on the Titanic page a few hours before my edit). People can't even agree on where Belfast is - is it in the UK, is it in Ireland, is it in Northern Ireland, is it in all of the above? So I thought it would be simpler just to say that the Titanic was built in Belfast, full stop, as opposed to "Belfast, County Antrim, Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (as was), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (as is)". Even that wouldn't be accurate, because part of Belfast (the part in which the Titanic was built, as it happens) is in County Down.
I'd love to know how one could get all those reasons into the relatively small space provided for summarising one's edit.
Nonetheless, I take your point - some sort of explanation should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklyn Eagle (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 April 2012
Hi Eagle. Thanks for your message. There are three ways to reply to a message on your Talk page: The most common way is to write your reply immediately under the original message, just as I am doing here. It is likely the User who left the original message will be watching your Talk page for a few days, just to see if you reply. You can always leave the "Talkback" banner on the Talk page of the User who left the original message, just to alert him that you have replied. The second alternative is to write your reply on the Talk page of the User who left the original message, just as you did. That way there can be no doubt that he will read your message. The third alternative is to reply via a general topic discussion on the Talk page of the article in question. When writing a message on a User's Talk page, or on the Talk page for an article, don't forget to sign using four tildes. (The tilde is the little sine wave - on my keyboard it is made by holding Shift and striking the key in the top left corner. When you save, Wikipedia turns the four tildes into your signature and the date/time.)
I agree that the bit about the location of Belfast is potentially controversial. The best way to tackle a controversial issue is to raise it on the article's Talk page, putting your point of view. One or more Users might reply and agree with you, or put a different point of view. You will find that if you raise the issue on the Talk page, wait a few days or a week, and then make changes based on any achieved consensus or on your own point of view, it is only rarely that anyone will object to your changes. If Users are given a few days to join a discussion but don't do so, they don't have much ground for objecting to the final changes. Happy editing. Dolphin(t)22:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm not surprised to be told they are not installed in every aircraft, hence some clarification is required, but I was under the impression that they were installed in all commercial passenger carrying aircraft. Clearly, [citation needed] - i.e. a reliable and relevant citation (or two) is(/are) needed. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pdfpdf! In Australia, the class of civil aircraft that have flight data recorders can be seen in paragraph 6.1 of Section 20.18 of Civil Aviation Orders which says:
6.1 An aircraft of maximum take-off weight:
(a) In excess of 5 700 kg and which is:
(i) turbine powered; or
(ii) of a type first certificated in its country of manufacture on or after 1 July 1965;
shall not be flown (except in agricultural operations) unless it is equipped with an approved flight data recorder and an approved cockpit voice recorder system;
The great majority of civil aircraft have a maximum takeoff weight less than 5 700 kg so they don't require flight data recorders. It is mainly the passenger aircraft operated by airlines, and business jets, that are turbine powered and have a maximum takeoff weight in excess of 5 700 kg. A suitable citation for this is Australian Civil Aviation Orders, Section 20.18, paragraph 6.1 - see CAO 20.18, para 6.1. I will try to find a similar reference for the USA requirement for flight data recorders. Dolphin(t)12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the number of passenger seats, if it is used in regular airline service and is turbine-powered or flies above 25,000 feet it must be equipped with a flight data recorder. This can be sourced from §121.343 of Chapter 14 of the Code of Federal Aviation Regulations.
Any multi-engine aircraft or helicopter, or turbine-powered aircraft or helicopter, with 10 to 30 seats used in commercial passenger carrying operations must be equipped with a flight data recorder. This can be sourced from §135.152 of Chapter 14 of the Code of Federal Aviation Regulations. Dolphin(t)23:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just part of the service! - Lol! Well, as I said, I'm impressed!!
I thought I was abundantly clear the last time. I don't know why this is so hard. Take my talk page off of your watchlist. If I find you stalking me again, we will head over to ANI and I will get an IBAN put in place. Wikipedia is a big place, you don't need to be following me around. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Parsecboy. I'm not stalking you. If you want to go to ANI and seek an IBAN let's not procrastinate - let's do it now! Best regards. Dolphin(t)13:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment you left in your revision notes on the page Wellington Electricity that I created. A little bit of acknowledgement goes a long way to encourage a relatively new contributor. It is nice to know that someone thinks you have done a good job ! I hope you get someone making positive comments about your work ! Marshelec (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I patrol a new page or two every now and then. It's not particularly rewarding work because most new pages that make it to the end of the list are sadly inadequate and usually unreferenced. It is a real joy to find one that is of high standard with comprehensive references. Wellington Electricity was one such new article. Well done! Dolphin(t)11:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent recognition of my efforts. About four months ago, I wrote an article for my colleagues in the mechanisms and robotics community about my experience with Wikipedia. You may find it interesting: Mechanical Design 101. All the best, Prof McCarthy (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to your article; I found it very interesting. And thanks for defending Wikipedia - in my experience many academics choose to dismiss it, or even ridicule it, rather than seeing the opportunity to fix the problems. Dolphin(t)00:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping out filling in the history of this aircraft. The refs I was working from are a bit skimpy and I am sure there is much more of the production history than can still be added! - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street children in Eastern Europe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Monty84517:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carbon neutral fuel DYK hook source courtesy URLs
Hi. That courtesy url worked for me, but I think these are better:
I've replaced the courtesy url with a link to the first of those in the article. The proposed DYK hook is based on the third paragraph of the abstract. Thanks for the helpful review! —Cupco15:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dolphin51. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
