User talk:Dolphin51/Archive 5

DYK for 1950 Australian National Airways Douglas DC-4 crash

On 29 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1950 Australian National Airways Douglas DC-4 crash, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the 1950 Australian National Airways Douglas DC-4 crash, an aircraft exploded in a fireball but when rescuers arrived they found one of the passengers walking around the wreckage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1950 Australian National Airways Douglas DC-4 crash. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft article dispute

Hi,

Hoping you can help clear the air at Talk:Aircraft#Blurb_about_rockets_and_missiles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to this discussion. I have added my thoughts and comments at diff. Dolphin (t) 08:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1945 Australian National Airways Stinson crash

Nice work with this article - its really comprehensive. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'm glad you liked the article about the Stinson - I enjoyed researching it. Seeing you have an eye for comprehensive articles about aircraft accidents, I have recently up-dated "ANA Skymaster Amana crash" and re-named it 1950 Australian National Airways Douglas DC-4 crash. I have also nominated it for Good Article status at WP:GAN. It is presently waiting for a reviewer so if you have some time to spare (silly proposition, I know) you might be interested in reviewing it. Cheers! Dolphin (t) 07:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to review it, and have just claimed it. I'll post a review over this weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. No rush. Dolphin (t) 12:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon neutral fuel article

Hi my name is David. I am a student at Clemson university. I am contributing to the article on Carbon neutral fuel for English class. You have done some work on that article and I would like to know if you have some advice for what to do. Thank you David1383 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I see that Carbon neutral fuel has a small subsection called "Greenhouse gas remediation" - see Carbon neutral fuel#Greenhouse gas remediation. This subsection has a small banner saying it is in need of expansion. I suggest you expand that subsection. You already have a personal sandbox and I suggest you paste the existing text from "Greenhouse gas remediation" into your sandbox and then, over a period of time, add to that text. You should add in-line citations to identify the sources of your added text, and then refine it to the point where you are happy to paste it into the article. Good luck with your English class! Dolphin (t) 08:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you encourage "sophisticated" vandalism in Wikipedia articles

I have recently noticed you had awarded a barnstar to Prof McCarthy "for his prodigious efforts to expand and improve Wikipedia's coverage of essential topics...". He indeed is prodigious, but I cannot even begin to understand why he writes such low quality contributions to Wiki articles. The worst part is that his contributions contain "sophisticated" math (usually well beyond necessary and frequently disfunctional), so they are likely to appear convincing to unsuspecting readers.

He claims to be a Henry Samueli Professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of California, Irvine, which makes the issue even harder to understand.

May I take the liberty to reproduce and discuss a sample of his edits (e.g. "Work by a spring" in the Work article) here at your talk page? I am sure that, as an aeronautical engineer, you will easily be able to assess my arguments related to such an elementary topic.--Ilevanat (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that Prof McCarthy has added a lot of high-quality material to Wikipedia. Seeing you believe he writes low-quality contributions I will be interested to read your views. Please post your arguments here and we can discuss them. Dolphin (t) 04:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Work by a spring

A horizontal spring exerts a force F=(kx, 0, 0) that is proportional to its deflection in the x direction. The work of this spring on a body moving along the space curve X(t) = (x(t), y(t), z(t)), is calculated using its velocity, V=(v_x, v_y, v_z), to obtain

${\displaystyle W=\int _{0}^{t}\mathbf {F} \cdot \mathbf {V} dt=\int _{0}^{t}kxv_{x}dt={\frac {1}{2}}kx^{2}.}$

For convenience, consider contact with the spring occurs at t=0, then the integral of the product of the distance x and the x-velocity, xv_x, is (1/2)x^2."

The above is one of his contributions to the Work (physics) article. The topic is widely known. Its elementary presentation in most textbooks assumes deflection (extension or compression) of a spring along its axis within the limits of the Hook law (which also appears to be the case here). The spring is assumed fastened at one side, its axis usually set to be the x coordinate axis pointing to the other side, its origin set at that other end of undeflected spring.

To make this disscusion simple, it is quite sufficient to consider the work done while the spring is extended from the origin to some point x. In order to do that, some body (or somebody) acts on the spring by the force F=(kx, 0, 0) and does work

${\displaystyle W=\int _{C}\mathbf {F} \cdot d\mathbf {x} =\int _{0}^{x}kxdx={\frac {1}{2}}kx^{2}.}$

(Actually, the first integral - the line integral with dot product - typically is not used in this derivation in physics courses. This is an example where the application point moves in the direction of the force, and many teachers like to present it before dot product must be introduced into the work calculations. But an encyclopedia article may, understandably, have a different approach.)

The above result is the work done on the spring while it is being deflected. At the same time, the work done by the spring (on that body) is negative (and of the same amount), because the spring acts in the direction opposite to the motion of the body, by the force F=(-kx, 0, 0).

Of course, when the spring returns towards the undeflected position, and if that body is still attached to it, the signs of their respective works change to the opposite value, because the application point moves in the opposite direction.

I may have just over-elaborated this simple topic. But now any reader can see how the contribution of Prof McCarthy fits into this. And I shall not insist here on my general view (elaborated at several talk pages) that any topics should be presented as simply and understandably as possible, without compromising correctnes and generality. Instead, I shall only point out the factual faults and nonsense.

1. Why is the spring "horizontal" and how is that related to the proposition that it acts only in the x-direction?

2. How does the spring "exert a force F=(kx, 0, 0) that is proportional to its deflection in the x direction". I cannot be entirely sure how a native English speaker understands this statement. Is it immediately clear (to the reader who came to this article to learn something about work) that the spring is deflected to the position -x (in order to exert such force)? To me, it would seem that the statement, taken literally, suggests the opposite.

3. For the calculation result to be true, the spring (its end in the contact with the body) must have moved from the position -x at t=0 (when the contact was started) to the undeflected position 0 at t (when the contact was terminated). And some additional assumptions must be made about that "contact", and about the "space curve" motion of the body. For instance, if the body moves in the negative x direction, the work (of the spring described above) must be negative.

And I am getting tired of further elaboration of the nonsense presented by the author. Is this enough?--Ilevanat (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I got carried out by "a benevolent attempt" not to declare formulas and results of Prof McCarthy plainly wrong. The result is that my statements 2. and 3. are either unclear or false. Appologies! There is no way around with stupid constructions I tried. The statements must be simple and clear:

2. For any deflection x, the spring will exert the force F=(-kx, 0, 0). Prof McCarthy just forgot the minus sign.

3. Work done by that force on a moving body may be positive or negative, depending on how the body moves along the "space curve". Only under some specific circumstances (but not those described by Prof McCarthy) it may be equal to what he proposed.--Ilevanat (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a specialist in the field of physics you will be more aware than me that whenever one objects exerts a force on another object, that other object also exerts a force of the same magnitude, but opposite direction, on the first-mentioned object. This is simply Newton's third law of motion. When a spring is deflected by its contact with an object there will be two forces in operation - the force the spring exerts on the object; and the force the object exerts on the spring. These two forces can be described as F=kx and F=–kx. Which one is which depends on such considerations as whether the spring has been extended or contracted; and whether the spring rate k is specified as positive or negative. You have written that Prof McCarthy forgot the minus sign. You may be correct. If he did forget the minus sign, does that mean he is practising some form of vandalism, or that his work is of low quality? Of course not.

Prof McCarthy wrote A horizontal spring exerts a force F=(kx, 0, 0) that is proportional to its deflection in the x direction. I believe he included the word horizontal in an attempt to be helpful to the reader, to explain why he states F as a function of x, and not a function of y or z. Strictly speaking, the word horizontal is not necessary and it could be erased.

You have written Only under some specific circumstances (but not those described by Prof McCarthy it may be equal to what he proposed. What did he propose, and under what specific circumstances may the two be equal? You have made the claim but you haven't supported it with any clarifying information.

You began by writing that Prof McCarthy writes low quality contributions to Wiki articles. I asked you to explain why you believe he writes low quality contributions. You have not yet done so. If you still believe Prof McCarthy writes low quality contributions please explain to me why you believe this. Dolphin (t) 12:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me try this once more:

1. For any deflection x, the spring will exert the force F=(-kx, 0, 0). Regardless of whether the spring has been extended or contracted. The spring rate k is positive by any standard definition (one may choose to define it differently, but not in the context presented and without clear explanation).

2. Specific result for the work done by the spring given by Prof McCarthy can be true only if the body moves (has a component of motion) in the direction of the spring force (so that this force does postive work). That may happen only when that end of the spring (in the contact with the body) moves from deflected position towards equilibrium. (Let me know if you need addtitional explanition on this.)

3. In order to obtain that specific result, the spring end must move from deflection x (positive or negative) to deflection zero. This must be specified by the appropriate limits of integration. (Let me know if you need addtitional explanition on this.)

4. Prof McCarthy did not indicate the above requirements in any way. There is no evidence in his text that he is aware of them. His body is moving along an intentionally unspecified space curve X(t) = (x(t), y(t), z(t)). He uses only the time limits of integration 0 and t, and gives an almost irrelevant explanation: For convenience, consider contact with the spring occurs at t=0, then the integral of the product of the distance x and the x-velocity, xv_x, is (1/2)x^2. Such specifications do not lead to the proposed result (1/2)kx^2; they may lead to -(1/2)kx^2 (but even that would require better specifications).

5. But the real issue is why he uses such complicated setup (poorely described), instead of some more common example for the work by a spring. And even if he does, he should describe and justify it more thouroughly, and give a correct presentation. As it is, his text is unnecessarily complicated and incorrect.--Ilevanat (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add one more note. In my view, when an experienced editor, claiming to be an educator in the field, edits a Wiki article, he should, above all, consider potential readers. And why do people come to read the Work article? Certainly not because they already know all about the concept of work, so they just came to check the style of Wiki editors, to insert missing explanations and to correct mistakes. And very likely not to follow devious math just for pleasure.

Therefore, I cannot understand editing motives of an educator who does not try to explain a topic (such as the work done by a spring) as simply as possible, at least at the beginning of his exposition (and have given you a sample of such approach in the above text, immediately beneath the quoted Prof McCarthy section in the Work article). Then, if he wishes to add some more specific or advanced coverage of the topic, he should start by an explanation of what and why he is presenting, and he definitely should make no errors in that presentation.

But what Prof McCarthy does (not only in this example), is to give only some kind of advanced presentation with errors (or in manner) that reveal lack of basic physical understanding. That may be as good as it gets in his specific field of mechanisms, so I have nothing against his contributions there. But when basic/elementary physics concepts are addressed in such way, I must protest.--Ilevanat (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You began by claiming that Prof McCarthy writes low quality contributions to Wiki articles. You also claimed that the worst part is that his contributions contain sophisticated math (usually well beyond necessary and frequently disfunctional), so they are likely to appear convincing to unsuspecting readers. The information you have supplied to support your claims is confined to the article on Work (physics), and in particular, his contributions related to springs.

Prof McCarthy joined Wikipedia in May 2011 and since then he has made over 5,500 edits. He has created four new articles:

• Kinematics equations
• Change for Balance Productions
• Six-bar linkage
• Machine (mechanical)

If we are going to discuss the quality of his contributions we need to look broadly at the work he has done on Wikipedia. That should begin with looking at the new articles he has created, so let us begin by looking at the criticisms you wish to make of the above four new articles.

If your claim was that Prof McCarthy writes low quality contributions to the article Work (physics), or that he makes inaccurate edits about springs, it would be reasonable to confine our discussions to the matters you have described here. However, your claim is of a broad and general nature so it is not reasonable to confine our discussions to one article or to one topic.

So far we have only discussed work and springs. To move forward, I would like to discuss the complaints you have against the four new articles created by Prof McCarthy. After that, we can discuss the twenty-one draft articles listed at User:Prof McCarthy; and the approximately seventy existing articles his User page says he is working to improve. As you can see, before we can draw any adverse conclusion about the quality of his work we have a lot of reading to do! Dolphin (t) 05:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but briefly. I looked at the four articles you cite. CFBP is a seven-line orphan on a video company, have no comment. Machine article should be his specialty, I believe it is good (cannot really judge), might be a bit tilted towards over-emphasizing the role of power (he likes that), so he chose a problematic citation: "a device for applying power or changing its direction" ("direction" is a problematic koncept for a scalar quantity). Six-bar linkage appears to be a neat little article, factually correct as far as I can see (but my knowledge there is limited); however, if I wrote about the topic, I would give some context: why an article about 6-bar linkage (is the number 6 something special), mention and/or give some links to 4-bar, 5-bar etc. That is what I percieve as a dammageing lack of perspective, when it comes to his contributions to basic physics articles. And that is most pronounced in the remaining article you cited, Kinematics equations. If you type "Kinematic equations" in Wiki (notice the missing "s" at the end of "Kinematic") you will be redirectied to something entirely different. The issue here is that this "s" does not make any real difference in general or professional usage (you may check that on Google). "Kinematics" or "kinematic" equations are something far more general than Prof McCarthy writes about. A casual reader stumbling upon his article would be entirely mislead. Was it so difficult set his contribution title more specifically, e.g. "kinematics eqations in Prof McCarthy mechanisms" (or whatever would be appropriate).

I shall end my discussion here, no matter how inconclusive. I was hoping you might somehow suggest to Prof McCarthy to avoid general/basic physics issues (he did not really care much about my arguments on a couple of talk pages) and to concentrate more on his special domain. It was to this end that I tried to get your attention with somewhat overstated (harsh) qualifications. But I did not exactly claim that all his contributions are bad, and gave sort of explanation immediately above, stating that "I have nothing against his contributions there (in the field of mechanisms); but when basic/elementary physics concepts are addressed in such way, I must protest".

If you choose to give it a try, I shall have achieved something. If not, I can understand. Anyway, thank you for engaging in this discussion.--Ilevanat (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You too. Dolphin (t) 04:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote problem

I wrote a reply on my talk page. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Benjamin. I have studied your reply and responded to it on your Talk page. Dolphin (t) 06:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra meetup invitation: January 2013

Canberra Meetup Next: 9 January 2013 This box: view talk edit

Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Wednesday 9 January 2013. Yes, that is tomorrow. Sorry about the short notice.

Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Canberra/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in ACT)

Canberra meetup invitation: February 2013

Canberra Meetup Next: 24 February 2013 This box: view talk edit

Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Sunday 24 February 2013. Sorry about the short notice.

Details and attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Canberra/February 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 08:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in ACT)

Lift (force)

Hi. I have finally gotten around to responding to the comments you made on my proposed revisions to the lift article. I don't think you and Mr. Swordfish and I are that far apart on these issues, and I'd like to see revisions to the article at least incorporating the major points I've raised, i.e. putting the formal science in clearer perspective, making the point that Bernoulli and flow deflection are not just alternative explanations but complementary parts of a more comprehensive one, and the point that the cause-and-effect relationship between pressure and velocity is reciprocal. I did make one change to my proposal in response your comment on how I expressed my point about a pressure difference needing something to "push back". Thanks. J Doug McLean (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arg! I didn't notice that you had already responded to my response. Thanks. I'll respond again there. J Doug McLean (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air-fuel ratio

Thanks for your commentary about adding citations to the percent excess air section. You may have noted that I cited the Wikipedia article Mass balance as a reference to how to make a mass balance to obtain the two equations listed in the XSA section. Another person deleted the reference to the WP Mass balance article, but it is not clear why. What was the harm? There are several citations in earlier sections relating to the use of more than stoichiometric air for combustion, and in general, the entire Combustion article has several, if not multiple, citations about calculating the per cent excess air. However, if it is WP policy to repeat citations for sources that have already been cited in closely-connected articles, I'll do it. I still think it detracts from the section not to reference the WP article on Mass balance, and I don't know why it was deleted. If you will be so kind, maybe you can revert the Mass balance reference deletion, so readers can click through to review the basic principles there. There is nothing particularly novel about making a mass balance, but if it is something you want to see in the Excess air section, I can add it. Thermbal (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. I see that you added a mention of mass balance - your diff. However, no-one has deleted it. Your mention is still there in the article. (Or am I missing something?)

It is very common on Wikipedia for an in-line citation to be used multiple times in one article. Our daily featured article is always a good example of Wikipedia's highest-quality articles. If you look at the notes and references at the end of any featured article you will see that many of the in-line citations are cited multiple times. (See feature articles.) This way, the details of the source only need to be inserted once, and on subsequent occasions it is only necessary to add an abbreviated form of the citation. Dolphin (t) 03:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See various citations added. Actually, before I made my edits, there weren't very many citations in that section, if any. Anyway, I got your point. I never figured out what Midas02 edited. Thermbal (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! They are great sources for this information. Regards. Dolphin (t) 23:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Aerodynamics article

Hi Dolphin; thank you for responding to my note on the Aerodynamics talk page earlier. As I mentioned, I think the article will benefit from splitting the rather long History section into its own article. I copied the section over onto my sandbox and I've started to make it stand-alone so it can be moved to the mainspace (at this point I have just begun to write a lead). If you are interested, I would appreciate it if you would take a look and make any suggestions as to organization/depth of coverage/anything else that come to mind. Alternately, if you feel that the subject is not sufficiently sourced to be notable, that discussion would also be productive. I'm returning to editing after several years of inactivity, and this is my first time editing more technical subjects, so I would appreciate any guidance you could offer. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 04:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Enid Lyons may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Haire and the Study of Sex'}} Foreword by the Hon. [[Michael Kirby (judge)|Michael Kirby]] AC CMG. (Sydney: {{cite web|url=http://sydney.edu.au/sup/|title=Sydney University Press}}, p. 343 quoting

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major crackpot at Buoyancy

Hello! I see you are part of the fluid dynamics team at Wikipedia. Some have posted a long, nonsensical Atwood machine analogy for hydrodynamic buoyancy, that is only supported by a crackpot site. I'm sending this message to each member at the fluid dynamics team.Arildnordby (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aeronautics

Hi, thank you for your appreciation.

I have made a proposal here to move Aeronautics to Aeronautical science, you might like to contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equations and punctuation

Hi Dolphin51,

I just noticed you removed punctuation from equations in multiple articles with the summary "Erased periods and commas from the end of sentences. An equation is not a sentence so it doesn't require punctuation.", e.g. Diff/594620381 or Diff/594621304. Do you have a specific reason for that? From all I know equations certainly are part of the sentence and therefore require punctuation as every other sentence does. This also is common practice in scientific publications as far as I'm concerned.
Only thing I noticed is that spacing was weird in some of the equations before you changed them. The default in LaTeX normally is a small space after the formula ("\,") followed by the punctuation symbol, e.g.

${\displaystyle a+b=c\,.}$

Looks good, don't you think? I'd be happy if we could correct those articles accordingly!

Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patrick. When writing prose we indicate a sentence in two ways - firstly we begin the sentence with a capital letter, and secondly we finish the sentence with a period. My view is that when we see a word starting with a capital letter, beginning on a new line we know it is the start of a new sentence. This is sufficient. It isn't necessary to see a period after an equation to know that a new sentence is about to start. When we write a math equation, physics equation or chemical equation we use only recognized math symbols, physics symbols or chemical symbols. A period to denote the end of a sentence is none of these. (In math equations the period indicates the decimal place. In physics equations the period indicates the dot product. In chemical equations the period indicates accompanying water molecules that aren't chemically bound to the primary molecule.)

You have not indicated what purpose you see for adding a period at the end of an equation, other than to match "common practice in scientific publications." It is good for young people to copy what other people do because that usually leads them to the best outcome, but a more mature mode of thinking is to ask "Why do we do these things?" and seriously contemplate alternative ways. Often mature thinking leads to a novel solution that proves to be the best outcome.

Have a close look at Chemical equation. Dolphin (t) 12:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconvinced by the argument that punctuation is unnecessary in lieu of capitalization. For example,

Since

${\displaystyle \sum |a_{n}|^{2}<\infty ,}$

Parseval's theorem implies that f is square integrable.

As written, this is a single grammatical English sentence. If you remove the punctuation and adopt your convention that capital letters on new lines always signify the start of a new sentence (when they follow equations, presumably), then it becomes a sentence fragment and a sentence. Although the reader can still probably decipher what is intended, why should we adopt a convention that creates such ambiguities in the first place? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is an example of the same sort but without an independent clause:

We call the estimate

${\displaystyle \int _{0}^{2\pi }f(x)^{2}\,dx\leq \int _{0}^{2\pi }f'(x)^{2}\,dx}$

Wirtinger's inequality.

--Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In modern prose, we use the principle that punctuation is used to avoid ambiguity and make the meaning of the prose immediately clear to the reader. In modern prose we don't use punctuation simply to comply with rules and regulations. We should apply the same principle to technical writing, including formulae and equations. If a sentence requires punctuation to avoid ambiguity, such as the example you have given, then the author should use that punctuation; and if a sentence doesn't require punctuation then it should not be made mandatory. You seem to be saying that you can think of a small number of examples where periods and commas are needed, and therefore use of periods and commas should be mandatory for all formulae and equations, all the time, by everyone. That is not objective thinking! Dolphin (t) 00:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But to me your argument seems to be that we should remove punctuation simply because rules are bad. That's not really a convincing argument. Rules of punctuation are a good thing. Readers know that sentences end in periods: they know when one idea ends and the next begins. Commas separating dependent clauses are a good thing because they shore up the writing against unintended ambiguities of interpretation. The rules aren't written in stone, and if something leads unambiguously to clearer writing, then it should be embraced. But a basic principle of writing, one that goes back at least to Strunk and White, is to "prefer the standard to the offbeat". If we ended some sentences with periods and some without, that would create needless ambiguity. Readers would legitimately be left wondering why there was no period at the end of a sentence. Is there some reason for it? Was some portion of the sentence accidentally truncated? I know because this is what happens to me whenever I read mathematics that is incorrectly punctuated. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but our Manual of Style mandates punctuation after formulae. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to this particular paragraph in the MOS. I wasn't aware of its existence.

It is true that many publications place punctuation at the end of equations, presumably in accordance with the Chicago Manual of Style. Increasingly, we are seeing publications that avoid this over-use of punctuation. Wikipedia is not bound to observe the Chicago Manual of Style. Wikipedians are free to choose the options they think are best for this on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I will raise the matter for discussion on a suitable forum. Please see my comments to Patrick87. Dolphin (t) 13:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's specific to the Chicago Manual of Style. This is a punctuation convention that is adopted almost universally in the mathematical literature. All style manuals aimed specifically at the mathematical sciences recommend that mathematics should be written in a way that flows if the mathematical symbols are converted into plain English, as though it were being read aloud. In part, this means including the necessary punctuation. This goes back at least to Paul Halmos's very influential essay (which you can find here), but is certainly much older than that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)0[reply]

I have been looking through my old textbooks. I found some that use punctuation at the end of formulae, and some that don't. Clearly there are some styles that require this level of punctuation, and some that don't. I greatly prefer the presentation I see in the textbooks that don't over-use punctuation. I am not particularly interested in answering the question "What rules does Wikipedia have to observe?" but I am very interested in answering the question "What is the best format for formulae presented on Wikipedia?" We set our own rules; we aren't bound to observe someone else's rules. The rules that were the best for paper documents a century ago are not necessarily the best for on-line documents today.

The reference to the MOS that you gave me refers to punctuation in all formulae, not just mathematical formulae.

What do you think of the following math equation?

1.2 + 2.3 = 3.5.

To a mathematician, what is the meaning of 3.5. I wonder? I think 3.5. means three decimal five; exactly the same as 3.5 so the second period is redundant. It adds nothing to my understanding of the equation. It shouldn't be there. Dolphin (t) 00:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Halmos's 1970 essay was that I referred you to was written much less than a century ago, and is recognizably quite progressive overall in its views of mathematical writing. Of course, some aspects of it are noticeably dated, such as focus on block printing of symbols. There are certainly aspects of the display of formulae that depend on whether the text is block printed, postscript printed, or electronic, and the constraints of each of these media should be carefully considered. However, I don't see how the medium of publication should effect the standards of punctuation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dolphin51, since I don't really know how to reply to you (you seem to be set about your opinion that punctuation in formulae is a bad thing, although two people plus the manual of style plus most published work tell you otherwise) I didn't answer yet. But since you left a talk-back template on my talk page I assume you want some sort of answer from my side...

I can only repeat myself though: If a formula is part of a sentence (and it normally is unless the article is written in a very bad style) punctuation has to be used as it would be used in every other sentence. Not because it is "common practice" nor because we're trying to "copy other people" but because it makes sense! Were writing an encyclopedia, were writing in complete sentences and we don't make an exception for formulae. This would be nonsense. Even in the (pretty constructed) example you just gave this makes sense. Consider the following sentence:

One point two plus two point three equals three point five.

It's the formula you just gave in written form. It's a complete sentence, isn't it? Therfore you would end it with a full stop. Now let's abbreviate this sentence by using mathematical symbols:

${\displaystyle 1.2+2.3=3.5\,.}$ 

It's still the same sentence! Only abbreviated using the elegance of displayed formulae! Why would we now suddenly stop using proper punctuation making the formula worth less than the written word? It wouldn't make sense... As you might have noticed in the particular coding I used for the formula which I initially proposed even the ambiguity around the dot is resolved. It's immediately clear that it doesn't belong to the number anymore, and that it is not a decimal separator but a punctuation mark!

If you still are not convinced, maybe you should have a look at some fine books written only for the sole purpose to inform the reader on how to typeset beautiful formulae: Nicholas J. Higham's "Handbook of Writing for the Mathematical Sciences" and Donald E. Knuth's "Mathematical Writing". I probably won't spoil too much when I tell you they urge you to use punctuation on formulae . Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrick87. Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. Firstly, a Talkback banner is simply a courtesy gesture to alert a User that something has been written on someone else's Talk page that might be of interest. When you receive a Talkback banner you are free to choose whether or not to read what has been written elsewhere, and whether or not to reply. You are free to immediately delete the Talkback banner.

In my study of this subject in recent days I have discovered that the link to the Manual of Style supplied above by Slawomir Bialy is actually a link to the math section of the Manual of Style. There is also a section of the Manual of Style devoted to chemistry articles and it does not mandate punctuation of a chemical equation. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry#Line equations. That makes me feel happier.

We both agree that punctuation is required in a conventional sentence such as One point two plus two point three equals three point five. Where we disagree is where a conventional sentence leads to an equation on its own line, bold font etc. Similarly, I guess we disagree where a sentence ends with a graph or a diagram - I say a period is not required adjacent to a graph or a diagram but you possibly say a period is required in this situation. Best regards. Dolphin (t) 02:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a talk-back means and I mainly wanted to express that I'm a bit baffled about your opinion (and I'm even more than before with your answer). Therefore this will probably be my last answer (since I don't see the point in further discussion here) and I'll do what you proposed by freely choosing not to reply any more. If you are so certain about your point, bring it up in the respective math/physics projects and see where it gets you there...

To answer your points:
First of all chemical formulas are not our concern right now! Only because the chemistry MOS tells you what you want to hear makes it not applicable for mathematical (or physical) equations, which is what we're actually talking about (at least not more applicable than the mathematical MOS). In the end I'm not quite sure that the chemistry MOS makes that much sense, but I assume it is inspired by common practice in scientific publications – something you initially frowned upon to make your point. In this regard please stick to our issue and do not cling to side-topic matters.
Regarding your note about the analogy of formulas and graphs: It does not exist. Formulas are contained within flowed text and Formulas are part of sentences if not even sentences on their own. Therefore they require punctuation! Graphs are mostly floating objects which you refer to from within the text. They are not part of the text or a sentence. Therefore the do not require punctuation. If you would start using images as part of a sentence the same would hold as for formulas though: Today I used my , which is red, to drive to work. The weather was . Now the images are part of the sentence and punctuation is required. Exactly the same as it is required for mathematical formulae. --Patrick87 (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrick. Thanks again for replying. You probably don’t realise it but I am grateful for our dialogue. We have challenged each other’s ideas and that is always good because it requires us to organise our thoughts and find suitable ways to express ourselves. As a result of our discussion I have examined a lot of my textbooks in various subjects to see what style each one uses. That made me realise I was always oblivious to punctuation at the end of formulae. I also see that mathematicians have their own section in the Wikipedia Style Manual, and they are mostly dedicated to providing punctuation in equations. Farewell and happy editing. Dolphin (t) 04:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dolphin, thanks for your openness. You're right: Actually I was of the impressions that you were dead set against punctuation and that this discussion would therefore be a waste of time. I'm delighted that it wasn't! Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slawomir. Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. Much of your argument is based on the principle that what is best for sentences in prose must also be best for formulae, including formulae that are given prominence by being displayed on their own line. Clearly this argument is incorrect – consider the following observations based on the Manual of Style:

• Articles should be written in lower case. Extended use of upper case is called shouting and is unacceptable. However, many equations and formulae are written entirely in upper case and this is acceptable. Why? Because equations and formulae are not bound by the same considerations.
• Articles on the English Wikipedia must be written in the English language. Foreign words and foreign alphabetical characters are unacceptable. However, many equations and formulae contain symbols and Greek letters and this is acceptable. Why? Because equations and formulae are not bound by the same considerations.
• Sentences should commence with a capital letter. However, many equations and formulae commence with a lower case symbol. When a sentence commences with such a formula the commencing symbol is not presented as a capital letter and this is acceptable. Why? Because equations and formulae are not bound by the same considerations. There are many other examples.

You made many interesting comments and I am keen to comment on a couple of them:

SW: "prefer the standard to the offbeat".

D51: The standard encyclopedia is written by professional writers and other experts, published on paper and sold to customers. Why have you allowed yourself to become involved with Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Wikipedia has not been created by sticking to the standard. Wikipedia has had to find novel solutions and new, better ways of doing things.

SW: If we ended some sentences with periods and some without, that would create needless ambiguity. Readers would legitimately be left wondering why there was no period at the end of a sentence.

D51: You are defending a system that can see one equation or formula presented in three or more slightly different ways – with a comma, with a period and with no punctuation at all. Clearly that creates the potential for confusion in the mind of the reader. Readers of math articles are looking primarily at the math, not at the punctuation!

If a sentence ends with a graph or diagram, I think the period can be omitted. What do you think? Do you think there should be a period adjacent to the graph or diagram?

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry#Line equations does not require punctuation at the end of chemical equations. The article Chemical equations contains many examples of chemical equations and none of them ends with punctuation. Best regards. Dolphin (t) 06:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment about signatures

Hi, I was going across the science desk history and happened to come across this edit [1]. Just wanted to let you know that it's IMO normally best to leave signatures for images on the RD, particularly when they include a caption as it can otherwise be confusing who left the image and caption. Notably disputes have arised in the past over something said in the caption so it's helpful to know who actually said it. And because of the way an image appears, it may sometimes seem to be from the question asker/OP when it is not, and taking an image as part of the question can sometimes change the question. (And I'm pretty sure the IP address was intended as a signature [2].) Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I remember making the edit. I assumed the IP was a newby but I have just checked and I see he or she is a regular contributor so your comments make a lot of sense. Regards. Dolphin (t) 09:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong guy

Some of your new text is highly doubtful – for example: In some circumstances, the aircraft can actually tumble end over end, sometimes at supersonic speeds, and the recovery may be difficult or impossible. Sometimes an intentional rapid pitch-up of the nose by the pilot, such as in a high-speed hairpin turn in a fighter jet, will cause the aircraft to become uncontrollable and it may begin to tumble.

I didn't write that, I simply moved it to a new location.

99.239.191.168 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, but it seems that based on this incorrect conclusion (above), you RVed anyway. A wonderful example of everything that has gone wrong on the wiki. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologize for being so testy in my last reply. I'm rather sensitized to the recent growth of "delete first, ask questions later". As to aerodynamic center, go ahead and change the links. I am worried about the state of that article though, it's filled with technobabble and math. That said, the center of pressure article isn't any better, nor would links to longitudinal static stability really help matters. Uggg, I had no idea all of this was so bad. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improved Schleicher ASH 30 article

I've made some improvements to this article to try to address the lack of clarity that you pointed out. Do you think that the improved article now warrants removal of the More Footnotes banner?My Gussie (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding those improvements. I agree that the "More footnotes" banner can now be removed. (I have removed it.) Dolphin (t) 05:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

School notability and AfDs

Hi Dolphin. You may be interested in a current discussion on my talk page. Whether you agree with it or not your comments would be most welcome. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very interested in it. I will digest it in coming days. I may be able contribute something worthwhile. Regards. Dolphin (t) 06:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello. Thanks for the pointers and the courtesy of saying welcome to me. By curiosity, did you find my small contributions because you were watching a page that I edited (I noticed that you have an interest in engineering like me) or by unrelated means?

Hi Qr! I have the Math Reference Desk on my watch list and I saw your major edit on complex numbers. You described yourself as a math enthusiast rather than an expert. I could describe myself the same way. I could also see that your Talk page was still a red link. Regards! Dolphin (t) 22:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hi, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct_of_J_Doug_McLean which you might wish to visit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will certainly take a close look at it. Dolphin (t) 12:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mediation request

Hello, Dolphin,

Hope all is well. An admin has filed a request for mediation regarding the Lift(force) Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Lift_%28force%29

Thought you might be interested. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I will take a close look at the link you provided. Dolphin (t) 00:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Doug McLean has not yet indicated his view on accepting the outcome of any mediation. Dolphin (t) 05:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He stated on the talk page "I would welcome formal mediation provided a mediator can be found who has a background in the field and is thus in a position to understand what the various sources say about the theoretical issues in question." Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Mediation Committee has accepted the case; and a call is to be made to members of the Committee, looking for a volunteer among the Committee to act as mediator. The time scale is one week. See the diff. I may be able to help so as the end of a week approaches, if no member of the Committee has volunteered I am willing to offer my assistance if that will be consistent with the mediation process. Dolphin (t) 06:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trove citations - the easy way

Looking at your Trove citations, I can see you are doing them the hard way! If you are looking at anything in Trove, you should see somewhere on the screen a "Cite" button (top left area of screen on the newspaper articles). Click on Cite and then (if necessary) scroll down to the bottom of the pop-up box where you will see a pre-formatted Wikipedia citation. Copy it and then click on where you want the citation in the Wikipedia article (assuming you are already in edit mode) and then click the "open book with red bookmark" in your Wikipedia-edit toolbar and then paste in the pre-formatted citation and then click Insert. It is a much faster and easier way to create a Trove citation. It is not just the newspapers in Trove that have these pre-formatted citations but also Trove's books, photos, etc all have these Wikipedia citations (the position of the Cite button varies but it's always there somewhere). Just to demonstrate I replaced the first Trove citation in Ansett-ANA Flight 149 with a pre-formatted one, see this difference report. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the citations you are creating (well, apart from the non-persistent URL, but that's not a matter of any great urgency), just saying that you could it a lot quicker and easier (and with the persistent URL). Kerry (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kerry! I will give it all a try. Regards. Dolphin (t) 05:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Long ago I decided against registering a user name here. In fact I wish all edits were anonymous except to CheckUsers. The visible association between edits and user names is, in my opinion, a fundamental flaw in this system, and I don't wish to endorse it with my participation.

But thanks for your cogent and persuasive comments regarding the Cabin pressurization article. I'm not going to do any major work on the article. I just fix serious errors when I find them.

Best regards. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for your reply. Dolphin (t) 23:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dolphin (t) 19:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation difficulties

I am trying to put in proper citations, but finding it difficult. I am a firm believer that citations are to serve the reader, not to impress the reader. So I try to make them refer to specific page numbers or chapters. How do I refer to a specific chapter number in a monograph? The "Chapter" field seems to be designed only for individually authored chapters. And it seems that if I refer to specific pages in a book, then I am prohibited from later referring to other pages in the same book. If I want to refer to more than one place in a book, must I omit page numbers? Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Retired Pchem Prof:: The difficulties you have described are related to use of citation templates. Mostly, I don't use templates - partly because of the problems you have discovered; and partly because I don't understand them. The majority of in-line citations I have inserted have been written from first principles. I just write the citation exactly as I want it to appear to the reader. For example, following is an in-line citation I have inserted in the past:

<ref>Clancy, L.J. (1975), ''Aerodynamics'', Section 3.9, Pitman Publishing Limited, London. ISBN 0-273-01120-0</ref>

Dolphin (t) 10:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did not realize that was allowed. I thought the template (I did not realize that is what is is) was required to enforce a uniform style (I am used to journals being very specific as to how they insist references be formatted). So I will keep it free form and just try to match the style produced by the template. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra meetup invitation

Canberra Meetup Next: 17 February 2016 This box: view talk edit

Hi, you're invited to the Canberra meetup which will take place at King O'Malley's Irish Pub in Civic on 17 February 2016. Bidgee (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Government Aircraft Factory

Hello Dolphin51. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Government Aircraft Factory, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: redirects do not have to be correct if they are useful (see WP:RFD#HARMFUL) and may assist users, who may not know the correct title, in finding the information they want. This gets about 5 hits a day, so it is evidently useful. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when a redirect has been here for a long time (over 8 years in this case) we have no way (except page usage counts) of knowing whether there may be inward links to it from outside Wikipedia which would be broken by deleting it. That's why the specification for WP:CSD#R3 specifies "recently created". JohnCD (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive explanation. Dolphin (t) 06:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra meetup invitation (August 2016)

I'll be in Canberra from the 29-30 August, there is a planned meet-up at King O'Malley's (though I'm open to suggestions) from 6pm on the 29 August. Sorry for the short noticed, only had the trip confirmed this afternoon. Bidgee (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of shopping centres in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bull Creek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dolphin51. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you revise the "Conditions for existence" section in the the Coanda effect article please?

The Conditions for existence section is unnecessarily ultra-technical, as well as being poorly written. I have revised the first half of that section as it simply describes the results of the experiment depicted in the diagram on the right. But it was clear from that exercise that the reciprocal of the h/r ratio (and not the actual h/r ratios as stated) were used both in the original caption to the diagram and in the text! Mistakes like this, plus the poor English, made the section almost incomprehensible. I hope that my rendering of that section has improved matters, even though the diagram to which it refers is unnecessarily complex, having obviously been lifted from a professional journal (or similar text) without the accompanying explanations of what the various codes mean. For instance, what do the water pressure graphs (in cm H₂O - labeled "Cm H^2O" in the diagram!) in the top left hand corner of the diagram refer to?

The second half of the section starting with the sentence

A calculation made by L. C. Woods in 1954^[14], of an inviscid flow along a circular wall........ needs serious reworking. Only the people who are already thoroughly familiar with Wood's, Young's, Van Dyke's and Kadosch's work would have the slightest inkling what these paragraphs mean, and whether the "h/r ratios" at the bottom of the section (referring to laminar flow over a curved surface) are true h/r ratios or their reciprocals. In fact this section seems to convey nothing other than that these authors have at some stage written about the Coanda effect. Maybe it should simply be deleted, though the information about laminar flow needs to be reported.

This section would make a lot more sense if some of the implications of the work were mentioned. I can think of one implication: since a fluid jet will not adhere to a curved surface at high h/r ratios it means that the airflow over a standard airfoil is not an instance of the Coanda effect, as the "jet" is, for practical purposed, infinitely thick (i.e. h/r has an extremely high value).

Cruithne9 (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

FYI

Hi Dolphin51, a bit late, but still a Happy New Year. Did you notice a page on Laurence Joseph Clancy has been started? Best regards and happy editing, Crowsnest (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crowsnest. And a very happy new year to you! I didn't notice the new page on Laurence Clancy so I'm very glad you drew it to my attention. What a memory you have!

I will help with the new article and I hope to be able to add some citations and new information. Thanks again. Dolphin (t) 03:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsnest: I contacted an Admin and asked for access to my 2008 article on Clancy - diff. He has restored my edits to the history of Laurence Joseph Clancy. Thanks for your interest! Dolphin (t) 22:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all the best with the article! Kind regards, Crowsnest (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Your Teahouse response

If someone is really new to Wikipedia, they probably don't have the "Move" option.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to this edit of mine. I agree that unregistered editors and some very new Users may not have access to "Move". Dolphin (t) 13:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Work (physics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Displacement. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic

The comments I made refuted the inaccuracies of a fringe theory which appears to have remained unchallenged for five years. You may note that I did also comment on the talk page. Astronomy Explained (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All comments belong on Talk pages.

If you see erroneous material in an article it is acceptable to delete it - WP:BOLD. It is not appropriate to embed commentary in the article. Dolphin (t) 01:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reasoned reply, others have less tactfully suggested that I need basic instruction on using Wikipedia. In the current circumstances I am reluctant to make any changes to the main article body for at least 48 hours. Astronomy Explained (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy definition (macroscopic)

Hi Dolphin, have you had any time to follow up on the July 14, 2017 discussion on the following Talk page Clausius theorem? It makes more sense to me to always define ${\displaystyle \delta S}$ as ${\displaystyle {\frac {\delta Q}{T}}}$, but the sources provided, which seem legitimate, defines it differently, with equality holding for reversible processes only. The topic has always been confusing for students, and having more than one definition would only make things worse. D4nn0v (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just revisited the Talk page and added my summary of the situation - see my diff. Does this help clarify my position? Dolphin (t) 13:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered an aspect of the topic that I wasn't aware of. See my latest diff on the subject. Dolphin (t) 22:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I wish I had something more conclusive, but it's what I have for the time-being. D4nn0v (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Dolphin (t) 10:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dolphin51. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Dolphin51|<span style="color:green;">''Dolphin''</span>]] ''([[User talk:Dolphin51|<span style="color:blue;">t</span>]])'' : Dolphin (t)

to

[[User:Dolphin51|<i style="color: green;">Dolphin</i>]] ''([[User talk:Dolphin51|<span style="color: blue;">t</span>]])'' : Dolphin (t)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most users are updating their signatures as requested. We hope you will also. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Dolphin (t) 12:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Bzuk. And my best wishes to you in the (cold) white north. I’m in the hot south! (37 Celsius today.) Dolphin (t) 22:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra meetup

Canberra meetup

Hi, there will be a meetup in Canberra on the 20 January 2018 at 7pm, I hope you're able to make it but understand that this is very short notice. Bidgee (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Writing [[u|Basemetal]] (as here) only makes "Basemetal" an alias of the article about the letter U. To ping Basemetal use the template {{u|Basemetal}} Basemetal 02:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve now got it! Sorry. Dolphin (t) 06:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

A ridiculous cat

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

for hilighting the wa air crash - I checked - there on the talk page - no wa tag at all... its interesting there is a vast am0unt of australian projects with inadequate tagging... never ending to cleanup JarrahTree 14:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JarrahTree: Thanks for the acknowledgement! The significance to WA of the VH-MME crash was included in the article from the beginning; but it was erased on 21 May 2018. When I discovered the 21 May edit I restored the most important bit. Dolphin (t) 20:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stabilizer (aeronautics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Center of pressure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dolphin51. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dolphin51. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trim tab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Center of pressure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

No one's ever accused me of being convincing before. I have half a mind to take a screen-shot and frame it above my mantle, so I can point at it every time my girlfriend and I get into an argument, and say, "Well a wise person from the internet respectfully disagrees." By the way, thanks for the typo correction. Spent enough years working in pneumatics that my mind defaults there. Zaereth (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tell your girlfriend it was a wise person from the internet. Some days I feel very unwise but don't tell her that; it can be our secret! Dolphin (t) 10:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling. I wonder if I can predict the outcome so far in advance... Zaereth (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pell article

I commented about a recent edit of yours at Talk:George Pell - Fartherred (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I will respond later today. on the Pell Talk page. Dolphin (t) 01:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fartherred: I concede that the text I deleted was well-sourced and impeccably cited. However, the test for whether an item of information deserves a place in Wikipedia is much more stringent than simply being supported by an in-line citation. It must not give undue weight to an item that is not sufficiently important. In the past year a lot of information has been inserted into our article about George Pell, but a surprising amount has subsequently been removed, presumably because it gave undue weight to some item that was not compatible with the succinct nature of the Wiki’s summary of Pell’s trial and conviction. If you look through the History of the Pell article you will see plenty of evidence of text being deleted despite being impeccably sourced and cited. One prominent example is the deletion by Vision Insider of a large amount of information about the opinions of prominent commentators. This deletion was made on 5 March 2019. (I regret that with only an iPad I can’t post the diff for you. You will have to go to the Pell article History page, or Vision Insider’s list of contributions, and roll down to 5 March. Or perhaps someone reading this will be good enough to paste the diff here.) Vision Insider’s edit summary says: ”Opinion columns are hardly worth mentioning. So what if someone disagrees with a court case - or agrees with it? It’s only worthwhile putting it in the article if it’s a prominent divisive issue, such as OJ Simpson.”

When one of your posts is erased don’t take it personally. Try to understand why it was erased, and which of Wikipedia’s Guidelines it might have contravened. In this case, read WP:UNDUE and try again, aiming to avoid whatever it was that caused your first attempt to be erased. We are all learning as we go along on this project. Dolphin (t) 13:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the revision.Vision Insider (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Insider: Thanks for attempting to post the diff. Unfortunately what you posted merely operates as a link to the Pell article at its current status. I would be very grateful if you have another go. For guidance on how to post a diff see WP:DIFF. Dolphin (t) 06:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Sorry, I've never embedded a diff link before and had no idea it uses a different syntax.Vision Insider (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 11:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken another look at your paragraph, the one I erased. I can offer the following critique. The paragraph was placed at the end of the section on Pell’s trial and conviction, so logically it should refer to the latest developments - the case in the Appeal Court. The first two sentences refer to David Marr’s written opinions following the Appeal. So far so good. But the rest of the paragraph refers to Monsigno Portelli’s evidence given six months earlier in the trial. Then there was a comment, from the trial, about Pell insisting the accusations were merely imagined. The paragraph ended with mention of John Howard’s character reference that Pell was of exemplary character, given around the time of sentencing. Chronologically, it was all over the place, wasn’t it? Presentations like this immediately give the impression of being amateurish and poorly organised. Such presentations attract the ire of critical editors who then have no hesitation in erasing your work, saying “Could do better if he tried harder!” Dolphin (t) 14:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George P. Doolette

Good morning!

I'm curious as to the rationale you give for changing "George P. Doolette" to "George Doolette" in at least one article as "no longer appropriate", a phrase reserved for terms which may have once been considered inoffensive but now outlawed as demeaning or derogatory.

George's father was invariably referred to as "George Doolette" or "the late George Doolette" and apart from its use as a business name, newspaper references to our man are to "George P. Doolette" as often as plain George or Sir George. Doug butler (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. Thanks for your enquiry. A day or two ago I checked to see if Wikipedia had an article about George Doolette, an Adelaide businessman and mining entrepreneur. I searched for "George Doolette" and found nothing so I concluded we had no such article. Almost as an afterthought, I searched for "Doolette" and found Doolette Bay, a geographic feature in Antarctica. To my surprise I found that Doolette Bay was named after an Adelaide identity who was the subject of his own Wikipedia article. When I visited that article I found it was titled George Philip Doolette with a redirect from George P. Doolette. The reason my initial search had found nothing was because I had no knowledge of Doolette's middle name or even his middle initial. (At that stage there was no redirect from "George Doolette".)

This is not the way Wikipedia's biographical articles are titled because the more information there is in the title the harder it is to find the article. Middle names or middle initials are rarely used in article titles, but where they are used it must be for a very good reason. See WP:MIDDLE, especially where it says "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes … is not advised."

For example, our article on the 33rd President of the USA is Harry S. Truman with a redirect from Harry Truman. However, in most cases, even when the middle name is well known it is not used in the article title. For example, Australia's longest-serving Prime Minister was Robert Gordon Menzies (R. G. Menzies) but his Wikipedia article is simply titled Robert Menzies. Similarly, Bob Hawke.

There was no reason for the article about George Doolette to be titled George Philip Doolette, especially as this was not compatible with WP:MIDDLE. I moved the article to George Doolette (which automatically converted "George Philip Doolette" to a redirect.) I then found there was a very small number of articles linked to George Doolette, and a couple of them linked to "George Philip Doolette" or "George P. Doolette". George's middle name or initial was no longer necessary to link to the article so I erased the middle name or initial and left an edit summary saying the middle name (or initial) was no longer appropriate. I'm happy to discuss further. Dolphin (t) 02:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

URL to diff

hi Dolphin51, you might like Template:URL to diff (to be subst:ituted). It's faster than Template:diff by hand. Boud (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that very useful information. I knew nothing about Template:URL. Dolphin (t) 01:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor

Thanks for that. I always *wanted* to be one of you, but family couldn't afford the trip to Cambridge, then the only place anyone knew of to get that degree. So I got to just aim them instead. With you 100% re the dolphin - one day we will be able to learn their language, unless they learn ours first. Thanks for the gentle lesson. Cheers. JC JenSee (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! Dolphin (t) 10:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

Hi Dolphin51, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at so many different articles. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC

Hi Zaereth. Many thanks for your good wishes at this time. (Yes, I celebrate Christmas.) My best wishes go to your and your family too! Dolphin (t) 11:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]