User talk:Dolphin51

Khalil Ahmad Khan

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)

(talk page stalker) You can avoid errors like this if you use WP:Twinkle. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

@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)

thankyou

4 help on centrifugal compressorMkoronowski (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't done much. Dolphin (t) 11:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Glad to be able to assist! Dolphin (t) 03:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! That's my first ever :-D I feel rather sorry for that guy, I hope he manages to beef up his articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Copy it and paste it to your User page. Cheers. Dolphin (t) 04:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

1942 KNILM Douglas DC-3 shootdown

Thanks for the message; I had been considering such a move for a while and have now moved it. Grant | Talk 04:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks for letting me know. Dolphin (t) 15:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fairey Firefly personal comment

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)

Thanks for your message! Dolphin (t) 10:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Exploration of the Pacific

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)

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)

XV179

I've flagged the issue up for a rename at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#XV179. They'll advise on a better article title. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. 2005 Royal Air Force Hercules shootdown is definitely a superior title! Dolphin (t) 12:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft description in accident articles

Following your comments on my talk page about providing a description of the aircraft that can be found by using the link I have raised the general issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Aircraft descriptions, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue on the project page. I have made my comments on that page. Dolphin (t) 08:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Work article

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)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dolphin51! 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)

A kitten for you!

This kitten wants to give you gift for all your contributions! Thanks for everything you've done on here Dolphin51. :)

Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talk 01:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget to sign my guestbook

Thanks very much Pink! You are too kind. Dolphin (t) 02:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1949 MacRobertson Miller Aviation DC-3 crash

Orlady (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) 00:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

1946 Australian National Airways DC-3 crash

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)

I agree the GA nomination has not been placed on hold. Dolphin (t) 21:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Managed to overlook that somehow. Anyway, it is now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your comments on the article so I can get to work on raising it to GA status. Dolphin (t) 21:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talkis wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Thank you! Dolphin (t) 10:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Center of Pressure Sailboats fixed

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)

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.

Great to have you back! Dolphin (t) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1989 Alice Springs hot air balloon crash

Thanks for fixing the teminology of 1989 Alice Springs hot air balloon crash I was not sure which way to go as various sources used different terminology. I was also loathe to say 'the envelope then enveloped' but someone has fixed that too. Format (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was pleased to be able to help! Dolphin (t) 01:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I am willing to endorse. I will have a look at at right away. Dolphin (t) 01:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been opened and can be found at WP:Requests for comment/DocKino Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dolphin (t) 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of the situation. I have endorsed the RfC. --John of Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to inform you, Dolphin, that I strongly agree with your opinion concerning DocKino. See also [1]. Onefortyone (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Assonance (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Dolphin (t) 04:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino now goes so far as to remove critical comments by other users from the Elvis talk page. See [2]. Onefortyone (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

I agree with the comments by Mmyers1976. See diff. Dolphin (t) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MAUL (weapon)

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, 220 of ^Borg 14:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. ToE 20:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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:

$F_c = - 2 m \Omega \tfrac{dr}{dt}$

where $\tfrac{dr}{dt}$ 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.

Dolphin (t) 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made another comment on the subject. See my diff. Dolphin (t) 11:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with an image

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives#Help with an image
To save you the click, the short answer is that you don't need to worry about it. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 06:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic GA review

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)

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)

I don't think we'll have any problems with your suggestions, they've all been very sensible. Prioryman (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Just to let you know I've now addressed all of the issues that you raised. Prioryman (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

Have a look at that one and I think we are about finished. Dolphin (t) 11:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded it - see what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Dolphin (t) 21:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your work on this! Prioryman (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey know the RMS Titanic --AwesomeSponge (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 2000 Australia Beechcraft King Air crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2000 Australia Beechcraft King Air crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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. William 15:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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)