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)
4 help on centrifugal compressor Mkoronowski ( talk) 06:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Invitation Hello Dolphin51/Archive 4! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
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)
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
On 1 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1949 MacRobertson Miller Aviation DC-3 crash, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1949 MacRobertson Miller Aviation DC-3 crash was, at the time, the worst civil aviation accident in Western Australia and the third-worst in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1949 MacRobertson Miller Aviation DC-3 crash.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it 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. |
Orlady ( talk) 18:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) 00:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
"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.
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 02:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Hey know the RMS Titanic -- AwesomeSponge ( talk) 12:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
Thank you for the welcome. :)
sprayer_faust 15:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
These diagrams are definitely still not acceptable. So far, I've found about 10 references, and none of them agree with you. I have not been able to specifically check the reference you added, but I have every reason to believe you've either unintentionally misrepresented what they've said, or that the source is incorrect and so misrepresenting the overall literature on the subject.
The diagrams seem to be at least wrongly labelled.
There's a good diagram here: http://www.pilotsweb.com/principle/liftdrag.htm which is similar, but different to the ones there are in the article, in that it is, at least, apparently correct.
Another example, if you check out the diagram at http://jeb.biologists.org/content/180/1/285.full.pdf at page 289 and 291 you'll see that that's not how the lift force works. The aerodynamic force 'F' can act in the direction shown in these diagrams, but not the lift force, ever.
I am sorry, but I am simply unable to reproduce your claims from any source and I've looked at about 10 sources now, and none of them agree, so I therefore request you revert their erroneous reinclusion, otherwise others will doubtless do it for you. GliderMaven ( talk) 13:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to add a disambigulation page for center of pressue in engineering and biomechanics. The new entry seems reasonable but it needs to be another page. Also, upon futher reflection the difference in static margin vice center of pressure and aerodynmic center arises not just from the symmetric versus cambered wing but also because missile got a large fraction of their lift from the body/nose region.
03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)~ Skimaniac ( talk) 03:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your congratulations, and your assistance in getting the article to GA and FA! Prioryman ( talk) 09:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have now finished my informal review. It is a great article and I have enjoyed reading it, and learning from it. Good luck at GA! Dolphin ( t) 11:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Prioryman. After I saw your last response to my review of RMS Titanic I added a couple of extra comments. That was a week ago but I don’t think you have seen them. They are visible at diff1 and diff2. Regards, Dolphin ( t) 06:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolphin, it is nice to see you active around here. I have a question regarding a photograph: File:Undular bore Araguari River-Brazil-USGS-bws00026.jpg. This version is mirrored (flipped left and right) as compared to the appearance of the photo in the original USGS publication in which it was used, i.e. Figure 5 in: Susan Bartsch-Winkler; David K. Lynch (1988), Catalog of worldwide tidal bore occurrences and characteristics (Circular 1022), U. S. Geological Survey.
The Commons version is scanned, which may have been done from the negative (and is easily swapped). Note that the quality of the scanned Commons version is much higher than the print version of the USGS circular. Now I was wondering whether the correctness of orientation of the photo can be determined from the shown parts of the plane from which the photo was taken (e.g. the instrument tube under the wing).
If you have time and interest: do you have any clue? Best regards, Crowsnest ( talk) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Crowsnest! I'm pleased to see you are still active, especially when users ask difficult questions on fluid dynamics!
I have looked at the two versions of the photograph of the undular bore in Brazil. I think you are right to focus on the bent tube under the wing. I assume it is a Cessna aircraft, and this is the old-style unheated pitot tube on an early-model high-wing Cessna aircraft. In fixed-wing aircraft it is most common for the pilot to sit on the left of the cockpit, and to have the most complete set of instrumentation, including the airspeed indicator. For this reason I believe the pitot tube is on the left wing, closest to the pilot. This suggests the high-quality image on Wikipedia Commons is the correct one.
I have checked a number of images of high-wing Cessna aircraft on Wikipedia and, where it is possible to identify the pitot tube, it is on the left wing. For example, click on the attached image. When I get to work on Monday I can check my theory to see how universal it is to have the pitot tube on the left wing. If I find anything extra of interest I will let you know. Best regards. Dolphin ( t) 06:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess I was not abundantly clear. You are not welcome on my talk page. I do not want any further interaction with you. Please disengage. Parsecboy ( talk) 10:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolphin51, Please understand that your correction made to the Mach Tuck article regarding speed of sound changes with temperature is misleading. I can see from your description that you are an aerospace engineer, as I am, so you should know that temperature has no direction correlation to changes in the speed of sound. Changes to temperature impact air's speed of sound only when the atmospheric pressure of air is changed. From your wording it suggests to readers that the speed of sound may change by manipulation of temperature alone, which is incorrect. Thanks, ( MyaaNyuhu ( talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
The article needs a lot of work. For one, it describes the effects of the stall, but not its root causes. It mentions separated flow, but fails to explain how does 'flow separation' causes a drop of lift, instead of ostensibly increasing it (as flow separation usually leads to a drop of pressure in the 'wake' area). The instrumental role of boundary layer and its pressure distribution in influencing the stall behavior are omitted altogether. This could be explained in a related page on flow separation, but one needs to be made aware that it is the boundary layer's, and not 'generic' flow separation that causes the stall and its effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Co6aka ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Dolphin51. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
I think it should be pointed out that the first equation in section 'Compressible flow in thermodynamics' applies only for the case of steady flow. See Landau Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, chapter on Bernoulli equation. For example, in a case of an unsteady potential flow, an additional term will have to be added which is equal to the time derivative of the velocity potential, similarly to what mentioned in the section 'Unsteady potential flow.' The difference between incompressible and compressible case is that in compressible unsteady flow, term pressure/density is replaced by enthalpy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.127.239 ( talk) 02:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Ships Barnstar | ||
Thanking you for your invaluable assistance on Sinking of the RMS Titanic and RMS Titanic - it looks like the articles have been a big success on this day, the centenary of the sinking. Well done! Prioryman ( talk) 21:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for the message you left on my talk page. I'm not sure how exactly to reply, other than by leaving a message on your talk page (is that the correct protocol? Apologies if it's not, I don't normally get involved in this stuff). I take your point about my edit to the RMS Titanic page. I should have explained it. I didn't because it's a bit of a mouthful, but, for the record, here is the explanation. Any time anyone mentions Belfast in any context, someone else pops up looking for an argument. (Which is exactly what had happened on the Titanic page a few hours before my edit). People can't even agree on where Belfast is - is it in the UK, is it in Ireland, is it in Northern Ireland, is it in all of the above? So I thought it would be simpler just to say that the Titanic was built in Belfast, full stop, as opposed to "Belfast, County Antrim, Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (as was), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (as is)". Even that wouldn't be accurate, because part of Belfast (the part in which the Titanic was built, as it happens) is in County Down.
I'd love to know how one could get all those reasons into the relatively small space provided for summarising one's edit.
Nonetheless, I take your point - some sort of explanation should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklyn Eagle ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 April 2012
Lots of good advice there, many thanks. Brooklyn Eagle ( talk) 00:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Really? I'm not surprised to be told they are not installed in every aircraft, hence some clarification is required, but I was under the impression that they were installed in all commercial passenger carrying aircraft. Clearly, citation needed - i.e. a reliable and relevant citation (or two) is(/are) needed. Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pdfpdf! In Australia, the class of civil aircraft that have flight data recorders can be seen in paragraph 6.1 of Section 20.18 of Civil Aviation Orders which says:
6.1 An aircraft of maximum take-off weight:
- (a) In excess of 5 700 kg and which is:
- (i) turbine powered; or
- (ii) of a type first certificated in its country of manufacture on or after 1 July 1965;
- shall not be flown (except in agricultural operations) unless it is equipped with an approved flight data recorder and an approved cockpit voice recorder system;
The great majority of civil aircraft have a maximum takeoff weight less than 5 700 kg so they don't require flight data recorders. It is mainly the passenger aircraft operated by airlines, and business jets, that are turbine powered and have a maximum takeoff weight in excess of 5 700 kg. A suitable citation for this is Australian Civil Aviation Orders, Section 20.18, paragraph 6.1 - see CAO 20.18, para 6.1. I will try to find a similar reference for the USA requirement for flight data recorders. Dolphin ( t) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Just part of the service! In the USA:
Any turbine-engine powered aircraft used in regular airline service must be equipped with a flight data recorder. This can be sourced from §121.344 of Chapter 14 of the US Code of Federal Aviation Regulations.
Regardless of the number of passenger seats, if it is used in regular airline service and is turbine-powered or flies above 25,000 feet it must be equipped with a flight data recorder. This can be sourced from §121.343 of Chapter 14 of the Code of Federal Aviation Regulations.
Any multi-engine aircraft or helicopter, or turbine-powered aircraft or helicopter, with 10 to 30 seats used in commercial passenger carrying operations must be equipped with a flight data recorder. This can be sourced from §135.152 of Chapter 14 of the Code of Federal Aviation Regulations. Dolphin ( t) 23:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
On 19 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1945 Australian National Airways Stinson crash, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the crash of an Australian National Airways Stinson in 1945 was believed by investigators to be the first in-flight structural failure attributable to metal fatigue? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1945 Australian National Airways Stinson 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. |
Yngvadottir ( talk) 00:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I thought I was abundantly clear the last time. I don't know why this is so hard. Take my talk page off of your watchlist. If I find you stalking me again, we will head over to ANI and I will get an IBAN put in place. Wikipedia is a big place, you don't need to be following me around. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment you left in your revision notes on the page Wellington Electricity that I created. A little bit of acknowledgement goes a long way to encourage a relatively new contributor. It is nice to know that someone thinks you have done a good job ! I hope you get someone making positive comments about your work ! Marshelec ( talk) 09:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolphin51 -- just wanted to say thank you for the welcome (and I wanted to test out this whole talk page thing) JSR11 ( talk) 15:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent recognition of my efforts. About four months ago, I wrote an article for my colleagues in the mechanisms and robotics community about my experience with Wikipedia. You may find it interesting: Mechanical Design 101. All the best, Prof McCarthy ( talk) 15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for helping out filling in the history of this aircraft. The refs I was working from are a bit skimpy and I am sure there is much more of the production history than can still be added! - Ahunt ( talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Street children in Eastern Europe 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/Street children in Eastern Europe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Monty 845 17:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. That courtesy url worked for me, but I think these are better:
I've replaced the courtesy url with a link to the first of those in the article. The proposed DYK hook is based on the third paragraph of the abstract. Thanks for the helpful review! — Cupco 15:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
De nada. I saw it mentioned in the discussion, and as it was a easy thing to do, I did it. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey Dolphin51. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 12:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
4 help on centrifugal compressor Mkoronowski ( talk) 06:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Invitation Hello Dolphin51/Archive 4! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
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)
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
On 1 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1949 MacRobertson Miller Aviation DC-3 crash, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1949 MacRobertson Miller Aviation DC-3 crash was, at the time, the worst civil aviation accident in Western Australia and the third-worst in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1949 MacRobertson Miller Aviation DC-3 crash.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it 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. |
Orlady ( talk) 18:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) 00:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
"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.
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 02:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Hey know the RMS Titanic -- AwesomeSponge ( talk) 12:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
Thank you for the welcome. :)
sprayer_faust 15:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
These diagrams are definitely still not acceptable. So far, I've found about 10 references, and none of them agree with you. I have not been able to specifically check the reference you added, but I have every reason to believe you've either unintentionally misrepresented what they've said, or that the source is incorrect and so misrepresenting the overall literature on the subject.
The diagrams seem to be at least wrongly labelled.
There's a good diagram here: http://www.pilotsweb.com/principle/liftdrag.htm which is similar, but different to the ones there are in the article, in that it is, at least, apparently correct.
Another example, if you check out the diagram at http://jeb.biologists.org/content/180/1/285.full.pdf at page 289 and 291 you'll see that that's not how the lift force works. The aerodynamic force 'F' can act in the direction shown in these diagrams, but not the lift force, ever.
I am sorry, but I am simply unable to reproduce your claims from any source and I've looked at about 10 sources now, and none of them agree, so I therefore request you revert their erroneous reinclusion, otherwise others will doubtless do it for you. GliderMaven ( talk) 13:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to add a disambigulation page for center of pressue in engineering and biomechanics. The new entry seems reasonable but it needs to be another page. Also, upon futher reflection the difference in static margin vice center of pressure and aerodynmic center arises not just from the symmetric versus cambered wing but also because missile got a large fraction of their lift from the body/nose region.
03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)~ Skimaniac ( talk) 03:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your congratulations, and your assistance in getting the article to GA and FA! Prioryman ( talk) 09:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have now finished my informal review. It is a great article and I have enjoyed reading it, and learning from it. Good luck at GA! Dolphin ( t) 11:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Prioryman. After I saw your last response to my review of RMS Titanic I added a couple of extra comments. That was a week ago but I don’t think you have seen them. They are visible at diff1 and diff2. Regards, Dolphin ( t) 06:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolphin, it is nice to see you active around here. I have a question regarding a photograph: File:Undular bore Araguari River-Brazil-USGS-bws00026.jpg. This version is mirrored (flipped left and right) as compared to the appearance of the photo in the original USGS publication in which it was used, i.e. Figure 5 in: Susan Bartsch-Winkler; David K. Lynch (1988), Catalog of worldwide tidal bore occurrences and characteristics (Circular 1022), U. S. Geological Survey.
The Commons version is scanned, which may have been done from the negative (and is easily swapped). Note that the quality of the scanned Commons version is much higher than the print version of the USGS circular. Now I was wondering whether the correctness of orientation of the photo can be determined from the shown parts of the plane from which the photo was taken (e.g. the instrument tube under the wing).
If you have time and interest: do you have any clue? Best regards, Crowsnest ( talk) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Crowsnest! I'm pleased to see you are still active, especially when users ask difficult questions on fluid dynamics!
I have looked at the two versions of the photograph of the undular bore in Brazil. I think you are right to focus on the bent tube under the wing. I assume it is a Cessna aircraft, and this is the old-style unheated pitot tube on an early-model high-wing Cessna aircraft. In fixed-wing aircraft it is most common for the pilot to sit on the left of the cockpit, and to have the most complete set of instrumentation, including the airspeed indicator. For this reason I believe the pitot tube is on the left wing, closest to the pilot. This suggests the high-quality image on Wikipedia Commons is the correct one.
I have checked a number of images of high-wing Cessna aircraft on Wikipedia and, where it is possible to identify the pitot tube, it is on the left wing. For example, click on the attached image. When I get to work on Monday I can check my theory to see how universal it is to have the pitot tube on the left wing. If I find anything extra of interest I will let you know. Best regards. Dolphin ( t) 06:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess I was not abundantly clear. You are not welcome on my talk page. I do not want any further interaction with you. Please disengage. Parsecboy ( talk) 10:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolphin51, Please understand that your correction made to the Mach Tuck article regarding speed of sound changes with temperature is misleading. I can see from your description that you are an aerospace engineer, as I am, so you should know that temperature has no direction correlation to changes in the speed of sound. Changes to temperature impact air's speed of sound only when the atmospheric pressure of air is changed. From your wording it suggests to readers that the speed of sound may change by manipulation of temperature alone, which is incorrect. Thanks, ( MyaaNyuhu ( talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
The article needs a lot of work. For one, it describes the effects of the stall, but not its root causes. It mentions separated flow, but fails to explain how does 'flow separation' causes a drop of lift, instead of ostensibly increasing it (as flow separation usually leads to a drop of pressure in the 'wake' area). The instrumental role of boundary layer and its pressure distribution in influencing the stall behavior are omitted altogether. This could be explained in a related page on flow separation, but one needs to be made aware that it is the boundary layer's, and not 'generic' flow separation that causes the stall and its effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Co6aka ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Dolphin51. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
I think it should be pointed out that the first equation in section 'Compressible flow in thermodynamics' applies only for the case of steady flow. See Landau Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, chapter on Bernoulli equation. For example, in a case of an unsteady potential flow, an additional term will have to be added which is equal to the time derivative of the velocity potential, similarly to what mentioned in the section 'Unsteady potential flow.' The difference between incompressible and compressible case is that in compressible unsteady flow, term pressure/density is replaced by enthalpy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.127.239 ( talk) 02:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Ships Barnstar | ||
Thanking you for your invaluable assistance on Sinking of the RMS Titanic and RMS Titanic - it looks like the articles have been a big success on this day, the centenary of the sinking. Well done! Prioryman ( talk) 21:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for the message you left on my talk page. I'm not sure how exactly to reply, other than by leaving a message on your talk page (is that the correct protocol? Apologies if it's not, I don't normally get involved in this stuff). I take your point about my edit to the RMS Titanic page. I should have explained it. I didn't because it's a bit of a mouthful, but, for the record, here is the explanation. Any time anyone mentions Belfast in any context, someone else pops up looking for an argument. (Which is exactly what had happened on the Titanic page a few hours before my edit). People can't even agree on where Belfast is - is it in the UK, is it in Ireland, is it in Northern Ireland, is it in all of the above? So I thought it would be simpler just to say that the Titanic was built in Belfast, full stop, as opposed to "Belfast, County Antrim, Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (as was), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (as is)". Even that wouldn't be accurate, because part of Belfast (the part in which the Titanic was built, as it happens) is in County Down.
I'd love to know how one could get all those reasons into the relatively small space provided for summarising one's edit.
Nonetheless, I take your point - some sort of explanation should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklyn Eagle ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 April 2012
Lots of good advice there, many thanks. Brooklyn Eagle ( talk) 00:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Really? I'm not surprised to be told they are not installed in every aircraft, hence some clarification is required, but I was under the impression that they were installed in all commercial passenger carrying aircraft. Clearly, citation needed - i.e. a reliable and relevant citation (or two) is(/are) needed. Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pdfpdf! In Australia, the class of civil aircraft that have flight data recorders can be seen in paragraph 6.1 of Section 20.18 of Civil Aviation Orders which says:
6.1 An aircraft of maximum take-off weight:
- (a) In excess of 5 700 kg and which is:
- (i) turbine powered; or
- (ii) of a type first certificated in its country of manufacture on or after 1 July 1965;
- shall not be flown (except in agricultural operations) unless it is equipped with an approved flight data recorder and an approved cockpit voice recorder system;
The great majority of civil aircraft have a maximum takeoff weight less than 5 700 kg so they don't require flight data recorders. It is mainly the passenger aircraft operated by airlines, and business jets, that are turbine powered and have a maximum takeoff weight in excess of 5 700 kg. A suitable citation for this is Australian Civil Aviation Orders, Section 20.18, paragraph 6.1 - see CAO 20.18, para 6.1. I will try to find a similar reference for the USA requirement for flight data recorders. Dolphin ( t) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Just part of the service! In the USA:
Any turbine-engine powered aircraft used in regular airline service must be equipped with a flight data recorder. This can be sourced from §121.344 of Chapter 14 of the US Code of Federal Aviation Regulations.
Regardless of the number of passenger seats, if it is used in regular airline service and is turbine-powered or flies above 25,000 feet it must be equipped with a flight data recorder. This can be sourced from §121.343 of Chapter 14 of the Code of Federal Aviation Regulations.
Any multi-engine aircraft or helicopter, or turbine-powered aircraft or helicopter, with 10 to 30 seats used in commercial passenger carrying operations must be equipped with a flight data recorder. This can be sourced from §135.152 of Chapter 14 of the Code of Federal Aviation Regulations. Dolphin ( t) 23:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
On 19 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1945 Australian National Airways Stinson crash, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the crash of an Australian National Airways Stinson in 1945 was believed by investigators to be the first in-flight structural failure attributable to metal fatigue? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1945 Australian National Airways Stinson 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. |
Yngvadottir ( talk) 00:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I thought I was abundantly clear the last time. I don't know why this is so hard. Take my talk page off of your watchlist. If I find you stalking me again, we will head over to ANI and I will get an IBAN put in place. Wikipedia is a big place, you don't need to be following me around. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment you left in your revision notes on the page Wellington Electricity that I created. A little bit of acknowledgement goes a long way to encourage a relatively new contributor. It is nice to know that someone thinks you have done a good job ! I hope you get someone making positive comments about your work ! Marshelec ( talk) 09:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolphin51 -- just wanted to say thank you for the welcome (and I wanted to test out this whole talk page thing) JSR11 ( talk) 15:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent recognition of my efforts. About four months ago, I wrote an article for my colleagues in the mechanisms and robotics community about my experience with Wikipedia. You may find it interesting: Mechanical Design 101. All the best, Prof McCarthy ( talk) 15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for helping out filling in the history of this aircraft. The refs I was working from are a bit skimpy and I am sure there is much more of the production history than can still be added! - Ahunt ( talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Street children in Eastern Europe 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/Street children in Eastern Europe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Monty 845 17:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. That courtesy url worked for me, but I think these are better:
I've replaced the courtesy url with a link to the first of those in the article. The proposed DYK hook is based on the third paragraph of the abstract. Thanks for the helpful review! — Cupco 15:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
De nada. I saw it mentioned in the discussion, and as it was a easy thing to do, I did it. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey Dolphin51. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 12:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)