Talk:Byford Dolphin

Reference

I advise people not to seek out the referenced article unless they have a strong stomach. It contains some disturbing photographs that would not be out of place at rotten.com. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 22:49, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I hope such scum editors crawling in the gutter at such exploitation sites, will never get their hands on any forensic photographs from this accident and if they do, may they rot in hell!--mark.t 14:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree those sites are horrible. -- FP ^{(talk)(edits)} 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Typos?

"The igor mortis was unusually strong. The hypostases were light red, and in two cases there were numerous petechial hemorrhages in the livors." i'm no doctor, but livors sounds wrong, and 'igor mortis' is just funny. -- Pauli133

There should be a link for rigor mortis, and there is if you look at the page source, but for some reason it's just not linking right. I've had this happen on my own wiki page and I think it's just a bug in the mediawiki somewhere. -- 12.218.2.203

It seems to be fixed now. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 00:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Description warning"

This article has the most graphic description of "mutilation" I've read on a wikipedia article, or really anywhere. I suggest we trim it back or at the very least add some sort of strong warning. -- 69.198.110.248

Well, that doesn't bother me much. It's pretty clinical. But it would be great if we had an on-line version of that article somewhere. Lupo 22:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Being graphic doesn't seem to bother the folks at, say, the oral sex talk page. Though in this case, I agree that a clinical presentation of the details is important, potentially disturbing or not. It's not as if we have inline images here. Vonspringer 22:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I acknowlege that it is a graphic article. But remember Wikipedia is not censored and as Lupo says, "it's pretty clinical." -- FP ^{(talk)(edits)} 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The graphic description is needed, as it was a horrific accident, which occurred and the worst diving accident ever recorded. A description warning could be made, but as it is clinical described, from the pathology report and includes no pictures from that report here at wikipedia. I don't personally think it's necessary, due to it's importance to the general public unaware of this tragedy and of medical interest. Pressurized diving/chamber & bell systems ARE extremely dangerous, and do terrible things to the human body when something goes wrong, as in this case.--mark.t 14:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

That has got to be the best description of what happens to the human body during explosive decompression I've ever read. You hear about it in any books or movies that mention how the difference in pressure can kill you, but I never imagined it anything like that. Thumbs up to whoever wrote that piece! -- Ghostalker

Well thanks :) I know it is an unpleasant and graphic topic but a lot of people are interested in it and it is important to show how dangerous these pressure vessels can be. -- FP ^{(talk)(edits)} 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Investigation

What's up with all those weasel words? The article currently says "Some individuals have alleged that the investigation was a cover-up...". Who said so? Are there any Newspaper reports? And are "outboard pressure gauges and safe communication system"(s) still not mandatory, or what? Lupo 22:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I'll ask User:Mark.T who made the claim to offer some evidence. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 00:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

"outboard pressure gauges and safe communication system"(s) still ARE mandatory, and where even long before the accident took place, and those are some of the things that where covered up and not mentioned on purpose, by the investigating committee, I have read the offical committee report released by the norwegian goverment, and there is no mention of such vital equipment, Though there were representatives from the norwegian oil directorate, who travelled out to the rig during the contracted work & made dispensations before the accident took place, they meant that since there was such a short time left on the contract, That such equipment was unnecessary, which proved to be extremely fatal, on the 5 of nov 1983 for the divers inside the pressurised system. I also personally know one of Diving supervisors, who was not on that shift at the time of the accident, but was sent out along with another diver, to 'clean up' the chamber system & the remains of his killed colleagues afterwards, can you imagine! It is well known that dispensations made by the norwegian oil directorate proved to be fatal, among former deep sea divers. The whole accident has been hushed down ever since it happended, that is why it is not well documented at all until now at wikipedia. Other than a small article released by the norwegian goverments information service http://www.odin.no/ and the offical committee report on the accident. You can also read some old norwegian newspaper reports on the accident from 6nov 1983, but you would not get much of a story from it. --mark.t 14:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting in the references below the article that a worker injured by a pipe durring the accident and had just sent an email saying that he had worked a shift of "34 continuous hours, broken by only 2 hours' sleep" and that the paperwork did not show any unusual shift length. Falsification of records? WonderWheeler (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

I have removed some material from the article because it was taken verbatim from the printed reference (plus it went into too much detail I think). Everyone please remember the copyvio rules. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 00:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why are the diver references like they are?

For instance, one is called D1. Why is that? - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:44 (UTC)

So that you can easily match them up with the diagram. -- 220.238.93.104

Right, but do we lack actual names for them? Were they anonymized by the investigation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.165.251 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Trunk

An editor added a rd lk to Trunk in an effort to explain the multiple refs to "trunk" in the article, but after 11 months there appears to be no suitable article. IMO this is a term looking for an article that would be simply a dictdef. The accompanying article lk'd to the Dab trunk until i removed it. Perhaps someone will

use ------>
or the ref in the Ed sumry reading

was looking at Byford_Dolphin and trying to get a better idea... had to consult http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trunk

to compose an inline clarification by the first use of "trunk". I'm removing the lk to the Dab, and diving trunk is red at this time.
--Jerzy•t 10:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am the editor who added that. Can you explain further? I'm having a bit of trouble reading your contractions. I just wanted to clarify that the term for those of us not familiar with diving terminology so I linked to Trunk and added some text to that, which I see has recently been removed.... As I see from reading the Byford article, the second usage of trunk clarifies its meaning, so maybe further clarification by wikification is not necessary?

Just FYI, I took the text that was in the Trunk disambiguation page and added it to the wiktionary page for trunk. I suppose that's better than nothing. Root⁴(one) 13:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced information

This article has recently had a paragraph of unsourced speculation added (twice so far today). If anyone has a reliable source to substantiate these claims, then please state it here, so that the article has a chance of being improved without edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The same unsourced paragraph has been re-inserted today. I've marked it up to indicate the places where the allegations made require substantiation - i.e. verification from reliable sources. If this cannot be done, the paragraph will have to be removed. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourced information has been added to reference list, so please do not remove the investigation section paragraph or it's references again, also do not remove external links added to the article, as long as their related to the article itself, they should not be removed. unsigned contribution by User:Mark.T2009

I don't know Norwegian, but the book looks as though it is a general book on diving safety. Does it really cover the accident in detail, and make these allegations? In any case, we should certainly be told exactly who it is who is making these allegations. If they are made in this book then we should say they are made in this book. "some people" is not acceptable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify my concerns with that paragraph. Since the allegations made in that paragraph contradict the findings of the investigating committee, such claims really do require a reasonable level of sourcing - see WP:REDFLAG. Since Mark.T2009 (talk · contribs) has edit warred consistently to insert this text and remove any templates asking for sources, I'll direct this specifically to him:

1. Some individuals have alleged ... is a classic example of WP:WEASEL. Who are these individuals? Who did the source that you used say they are?
2. ... the irresponsible dispensations requested by comex ... - what is the source that says comex requested dispensations and in what way does it describe them as irresponsible?
3. ... authorized by the diving section to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate ... - where in your source does it say that the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate authorised the dispensations?
4. ... vital equipment in their report, which had a large role in the accident's occurrence ... - what source assigns a 'large role' to equipment in the occurrence of the accident?
5. ... they also alleged the accident was due to a lack of proper equipment ... - what source says that the 'lack of proper equipment' caused the accident?

I believe that there is no source that substantiates these allegations, otherwise it would have been produced by now. Please be clear that I am not casting doubt on the truth of these claims. I am merely saying that without reliable third party sources that can verify them, they have no place in Wikipedia. I am a disinterested party in the matter of blame for the incident, but I find it disgusting that a SPA account can force content into Wikipedia that does not meet its most basic policies. --RexxS (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote: 'I find it disgusting that a SPA account can force content into Wikipedia that does not meet its most basic policies.'

Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

Questions:

1. Some individuals have alleged ... is a classic example of WP:WEASEL. Who are these individuals? Who did the source that you used say they are?
2. ... the irresponsible dispensations requested by comex ... - what is the source that says comex requested dispensations and in what way does it describe them as irresponsible?
3. ... authorized by the diving section to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate ... - where in your source does it say that the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate authorised the dispensations?
4. ... vital equipment in their report, which had a large role in the accident's occurrence ... - what source assigns a 'large role' to equipment in the occurrence of the accident?
5. ... they also alleged the accident was due to a lack of proper equipment ... - what source says that the 'lack of proper equipment' caused the accident?

Answer:

Among others see Reference (the one you help me add)

3 ^ Wingen, Tom. "Byford Dolphin Disaster". Pioneer Divers in the Norwegian Sector of the North Sea. North Sea Divers Alliance. http://www.pioneerdivers.org/index.php?/en/article/byford_dolphin_05111983/. Retrieved 2009-10-26.

Quote:

From Pioneer diver Tom Wingen

'The Superintendent was Arild Skisland. I had a very interesting discussion with the Divers Representative about the inquest; apparently they tried to place all of the blame on Skisland. Both the Comex representative and the Comex lawyer were aware of requests made for a bell inter-lock system and they did not give this evidence at the inquest. Due to budgetary cut backs it was decided by Comex that this equipment should not be supplied. Comex asked for special dispensation and received that dispensation from the NPD. (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As this is the first time you have deigned to engage in discussion on the talk page, though, you can hardly be surprised that your motives here are called into question - assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. Now that we are able to communicate, let's see if we can move forward to improving the article. I know you're not going to like this, but the source you offer is not likely to be a reliable source for the purposes of verifying the statements above, because it's a second-hand report of a discussion on a site that has no reputation for checking the accuracy of its content.

I'm not trying to put obstacles in your way - and I'll even create the in-line cite for you if you need help with that - but you do need to understand what is required of our sources on Wikipedia. It is perfectly appropriate to use the site as a source for its own views (as we have done already), but not for making claims about third-parties - see WP:RS - unless it can be shown it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I'm not dismissing the source out-of-hand, and I can help you get another opinion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but I'm not hopeful. You still need to address the concerns I make at points 1, 2 (the 'irresponsible' part), 4 and 5, but I'm happy if we can make progress on the source you have given first. --RexxS (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you just make contridictions with your own opinions, as well as making biased alligations like quote: 'a site that has no reputation for checking the accuracy of its content', Know what makes you claim that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.T2009 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What contradiction? What biased allegation? I'm trying to find some common ground here. If you'd ever observed the Featured Article process, you'd know that one of the first questions asked is "What makes xxx.com a reliable source?". Look at the top of the policy WP:RS: Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - so answer this: where can I find that http://www.pioneerdivers.org has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?

Just take the time to read through some of WP:RSN and you'll get some idea of what editors are looking for in a reliable source. Or just ask the question there, but I suspect that you'll be disappointed. If I'm wrong, I'll apologise without reservation, but for the moment, if you don't mind, I'll stick with my scepticism of that source. --RexxS (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question about their reputation for fact-checking & accuracy, please take a look & check their reference list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.T2009 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - that's helpful. I've looked at what I assume is their reference list at http://www.pioneerdivers.org/index.php?/en/article/reference_documentation/ - is that the one you mean? I'm familiar with some of the work cited - Peter Bennett's work on CNS toxicity and Christian Lambertsen's on oxygen tolerance, in particular. The problem I have at the moment is that none of the links there work for me. I don't seem to be able to resolve "www.tekdoc.no", so I can't see the other articles. Does anyone else have the same problem? I get no result for the domain "tekdoc.no" - see http://whois.domaintools.com/tekdok.no

Perhaps I can give you an opinion on www.pioneerdivers.org's reputation for fact-finding & accuracy, if you can explain how I can see the sources they are relying on? Having done all of this, I really hope you can point a little more precisely to where you got the information you added for the points 1–5 above. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I also can't get tekdoc.no to work. A close look at the links shows that all the ones referenced start "http://www.tekdoc.no/pioneerdivers_org_upload" which to my mind indicates that the site is an uncontrolled document repository and that the documents referenced have been uploaded by the organisation referencing them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Iv'e been busy latelty, so I have not had time to answer your queries. I am aware of the links don't work, most likely www.tekdoc.no has changed to another domain & the links have therefore, either been relinked to a new domain or currently inactive due to tekdoc.no being inactive atm. I see if I can get in contact with Mr Wingen & ask him to fix & update the reference links. You can also search out the reference links online using search engines, as you have already informed, your familiar with CNS toxicity and Christian Lambertsen's on oxygen tolerance. Mark.T2009 14:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.T2009 (talk • contribs)

I'm still not sure that we'll be able to show that www.pioneerdivers.org meets wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. However, DJ Clayworth (talk · contribs) has spent time in finding other sources, and has rewritten the section based on what he has found. I hope it goes some way to meeting your concerns that important information was missing from the article. Thanks for providing that BBC news report as well. I've taken the liberty of creating a "Further reading" section to hold that link and any other relevant links that expand on the subject, where they are not used to directly cite text in the article. I've also formatted those sources with a cite template, although I still can't find a working ISBN number for the book. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph in "Investigation" that you added needs to be cited to a reliable source. Please indicate the sources you used when you add information that is controversial or likely to be challenged. It is not fair to expect other editors to keep searching for sources when you add text without sourcing it. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes well that is the opinion by yourself & DJ Clayworth (talk · contribs), Im also aware that he has added sources and news information, which are not directly linked to the article itself, & which you claim are better sources, although not related to the article, but more related to the compensation for the families of the deceased divers. Never the less, it is allright to add it as extended material. I was suprised you did not add news related sources yourself, until DJ C edited it into the article. There is a large amount of news information sources, regarding the pioneer divers struggle reported through numerous news paper & news channels, both tv & online, including british news sources. Im sure you where aware of them, prior to starting editing of the byford dolphin article.

Quote: 'What I haven't been able to locate is reliable coverage showing a cover up in the specific case of the Byford Dolphin. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I can't find it.'

Today there was an in-deepth article about one of the survivors Martin Saunders & the byford dolphin accident, written by the norwegian newspaper dagbladet, in their weekly saturday special magazine 'magasinet' http://www.dagbladet.no/magasinet/ The byford dolphin article including reports on the dispensations, should go online tomorrow, as the magazine paper issue was relased today.Mark.T2009 16:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote: The second paragraph in "Investigation" that you added needs to be cited to a reliable source. Please indicate the sources you used when you add information that is controversial or likely to be challenged. It is not fair to expect other editors to keep searching for sources when you add text without sourcing it.

Have you read the commission report NOU regarding byford dolphin, it is clearly stated that norske veritas passed such law back in 1982.Mark.T2009 17:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not disputing the creation of the law, but you wrote more than that, and you don't have references for everything you wrote. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A little research

I decided to do a little research on the North Sea Divers Alliance, which appears to run the pioneerdivers.org website. They seem to be a pressure group for divers from the early days of North Sea oil exploration, and founded around 1990. They get significant news coverage, and some government acknowledgement of their existence (ruling out the possibility that it's a one-man crackpot organisation).

There is significant coverage of their efforts, [1] [2] [3]. It seems they were largely responsible for a successful suit for compensation from the Norwegian government to foreign divers working in their territory [4] [5]. It also seems that there is significant reliable coverage for their claims that the Norwegian government did know more about the general health risks to divers than they admitted [6].

What I haven't been able to locate is reliable coverage showing a cover up in the specific case of the Byford Dolphin. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I can't find it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly it seems that the suit was successful only in the last few days: [7]. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in this. A few days ago, Mark.T2009 referred to pioneerdivers.org and I was able to [add a paragraph] with cites to the "Investigation" section about North Sea Divers Alliance - as much as I could reasonably verify from their site. The site http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=86502910314 looks tantalisingly close to being a source for what Mark is claiming. I'm sure there's a lot more in this than we have been able to tie to reliable sources so far, and I understand Mark.T2009's frustration when the section called "Aftermath of Investigation" is removed - he obviously cares deeply about the issue. Nevertheless, finding good sources is the key to sorting that section out, and I'm grateful for the time you've put in to looking for them. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote: 'What I haven't been able to locate is reliable coverage showing a cover up in the specific case of the Byford Dolphin. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I can't find it.'

Today there was an in-deepth article about one of the survivors Martin Saunders & the byford dolphin accident, written by the norwegian newspaper dagbladet, in their weekly saturday special magazine 'magasinet' http://www.dagbladet.no/magasinet/ The byford dolphin article including reports on the dispensations, should go online tomorrow, as the magazine paper issue was relased. Mark.T2009 16:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.T2009 (talk • contribs)

I've reverted your additions because, as of now, they are not referenced. When there is a reference to them available then you can add them. Please don't criticise other people for not being able to find references when you yourself failed to add supporting references to what you wrote. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not criticised other people, as you claim, I simply stated the sources you added, where not directly related to the byford dolphin article, as for my sources which you also claim i have failed to provide, that is also untrue, as the source backing up the claim is provided in the book 'nordsjødykkerne' Which neither you nor Reexs have reviewed as yet. Mark.T2009 18:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.T2009 (talk • contribs)

In case it is not clear to you, you need to supply a specific reference within the paragraph that you write to say which reference supports the statements. Please also note that weasel words such as "some people" are not permitted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nor is it likely that I will ever review the book. It's written in Norwegian and has no ISBN that would allow me to find a library copy anyway. Let me try once more to try to explain to you. You may not simply add text expressing your opinion which is only supported by sources that nobody else can verify. The way it works is that you read a source which is reliable and can be verified, then use it to add text to the article. At the same time, you add a citation of that source at the end of the text you added (using <ref> ... </ref> tags). I'm quite happy to help with anything you don't understand. But I won't do your research for you, and I won't sit by and watch you continually add unreliably sourced content in an effort to further your campaign. --RexxS (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Non-English sources Policy shortcuts: WP:RSUE WP:VUE WP:NONENG English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.Mark.T2009 14:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read through our policies on sourcing. Would you be kind enough now to do what it asks and "quote the relevant portion of the original text", please? You can place it here if you wish and I'll arrange it appropriately in the article as I can see you are still having difficulties with using refs.

I've assumed that you intended to use the "NOU 1984" source to cite the lack of fail-safe interlock in the text you recently inserted, so I've placed the ref there. The "See also" section is for links to other wikipedia articles (internal links), not for references to external sites. --RexxS (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Norske veritas certification for Sec 3 B305 1982

Rules for certification of diving systems, 1982 - Connecting mechanisms betwenn bell and chambers are to be so arranged that they cannot be operated when the trunk is pressurized'Mark.T2009 14:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.T2009 (talk • contribs)

Dimensions and units

The dimensions of Byford Dolphin are given different values at https://exchange.dnv.com/exchange/main.aspx?extool=vessel&subview=dimensions&vesselid=09092 from those at http://www.fredolsen-energy.no/?aid=9048931 and http://www.fredolsen-energy.no/arch/_img/9073113.pdf, namely:

• Length: 110.1 m vs 355 ft (108,2 m)
• Breadth: 69.66 m vs 221 ft (67,4 m)
• Draught/Depth: 36.58 m vs 120 ft (36,6 m)

In addition, there is a mixture of en-us and en-gb spellings, as well as inconsistency between imperial (metric) and metric (imperial) conventions for quoting conversions. I'm going to regularise these to use the dimensions from Fred Olsen, metric (imperial) for the conversions, and assume en-gb spelling because the rig is working in the UK sector of the North Sea. --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RexxS, what is wrong with you?

It is up to you to prove there were mistakes with my edits, rather than revert and then demand me to defend them, and then threaten to block me after you and another accused me of bad edits. Neither you nor emerson7 would say anything in the edit summary, and it is you and emerson7 who began the edit war. 85.114.137.152 (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please focus here on improving the article. The title of this section is insulting and does nothing indicate that your intentions here are to contribute constructively. Neither of us have to prove anything, please see WP:BRD. When you are reverted, the onus is on you to seek consensus for the changes you want to make by discussion. My first edit summary was clear enough: "article titles are normally capitals; comma is list separator, not colon; 'indiscovered' is not an English word" and I even went to the trouble of explaining to you on your talk page why there is no need to change [[Astrophysics|astrophysicist]] to [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]]. The reference prior to your edits read "Astronomy and Astrophysics 282, 262–268 (1994)" which matches the style used in the article – if you think that another style is more appropriate, please make the case for it here. The dictionary.com entry for "indiscovered" is here. Please supply your citation for the existence of the word "indiscovered" in the English language (apart from the name of pop groups), and any reason why it should be preferred to the normal "undiscovered". --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I was insulted when you and emerson7 either ignorantly or deludedly went to report me to admins for vandalism, instead of go to dispute resolution or arbcom, as is Wiki procedure. Both of ye broke

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

on WP:BRD. Your edit summary was wrong on each: Uppercase is for proper nouns; there was no list but a set (Is 5:40 AM a list? How about 6'3? 85.114.137.152?); this has nothing to do with English. English has been dead for 1000 years. dis- and -able aren't English, but the Wikipedians here are fine with Francish/Latinate roots, and forget and forgo the English ones. (Can you even say prior in English instead of bad Latin?) By your dictionary argument, is computerlike a word? You wish anyone not to make words as needed to insure the ongoing death of English. Why you or emerson7 would revert cases so all wiki links are consistent, and see my edits as vandalism, had nothing to do with improvement; it's nothing but to be disruptive. There are three colons in Wikipedia:Citing sources, two colons in author-date referencing, and is standard for MLA style. 24.118.14.160 (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

further, ip user:85.114.137.152 (talk · contribs) continues to change the word "length" to "width", where all relevant references clearly indicate the ship's "length" is correct. "width" and "breadth" mean the same thing, and that measure is also given in the same sentence. this is the reason i initially believed the edits were malicious when they started making them on 4 november under a different ip. --emerson7 01:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I spotted the same thing, and assumed that it was the same user, but 65.209.244.80 geolocates to Santa Clara, CA, while 85.114.137.152 geolocates to Berlin. It could be a proxy of course, but I thought it better to AGF it as a new user with poor English and explain as much as I could. Given the nonsense on the latter's talk page since then, it might be time to take it to ANI and see if there's a proxy that needs blocking. --RexxS (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What does "correct" mean to you? If someone said bad instead of good, kilograms instead of newtons, chlorine instead of hypochlorite, irregardless instead of irrespective, would it still be correct to put verbatim in Wikipedia? The editor needs to queath the meaning or intention behind someone's report, and not parrot wrongful wordbrukes. And RexxS, my English is not poor. Yours and the world's is. width and breadth cannot mean the same thing; they're not the same word! And length as anything but a meting of time is a delusion. Length comes in seconds or years: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+-autumn+%22length+is+time%22. One's shoulders are broad; someone may be at broad or at large—these are the same word. One's belly is wide. A stream or gap may be wide or narrow, yet broad. emerson7 the illiterate thinks "i" and "ip" are the same as "I" and "IP", and isn't qualified to edit for ghrammar, diction, English, Latin, whatever. 24.118.14.160 (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Split proposal

The accident is so different from the actual specifications for the Byford Dolphin, and so notable on its own, that it should have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoop whoop pull up (talk • contribs) 00:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It already does have its own page: this one. The accident is most of what makes Byford Dolphin notable and removing it would make this parent article an non-notable stub. If you think anyone is likely to use or search for Byford Dolphin decompression, then a redirect to the section would be appropriate. The only sensible reason for splitting an article such as this into subtopics is when it becomes too large – and it's a long way short of that. --RexxS (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Without the accident, who would care? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'l remove the {{split}} template from this page. --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 11:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 11:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support split. The rig is significant even without the accident and deserves its own article. At the same time, also this accident deserves its own article. Beagel (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Names

Is there any reason why the article does not name the divers and, rather, labels them as D1, D2, T1, T2, and so forth? Is there some (legal?) reason why their names are not included in this article? Would not the investigation and the names have been open to the public, during the subsequent years? Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Roy Lucas

Under the section titled "subsequent lawsuit", the article mentions "Clare Lucas, daughter of Roy Lucas". However, nowhere in the article does it previously mention who Roy Lucas is. This section strongly infers that Lucas was one of the deceased, who was involved in the accident. Can someone clarify this within the artice? This issue also relates to my question immediately above, about how this article uses anonymous labels (D1, D2, etc.), instead than the actual names of the divers. Can anyone clarify this situation? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Done now. Gildir (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Byford Dolphin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720154005/http://www.fredolsen-energy.no/arch/_img/9073113.pdf to http://www.fredolsen-energy.no/arch/_img/9073113.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Byford Dolphin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.offshore.no/international/news/article.aspx?id=15588
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212210351/http://www.npd.no:80/English/Aktuelt/Nyheter/aad_redegjorelse.htm to http://www.npd.no/English/Aktuelt/Nyheter/aad_redegjorelse.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727175024/http://www.pioneerdivers.org/index.php?/en/article/byford_dolphin_05111983/ to http://www.pioneerdivers.org/index.php?/en/article/byford_dolphin_05111983/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103101013/http://www.pioneerdivers.org:80/index.php?/en/ to http://www.pioneerdivers.org/index.php?/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Blood does not boil due to decompression to 1 bar

"The blood of the three divers left intact inside the chambers likely boiled instantly"

This sentence has a reference but only leads to an abstract (no full text). Was the full text available at some point and if so, did it really say the blood boiled? Gases dissolved in the blood certainly gased out suddenly, causing death, but technically this process is not boiling, no matter how fast and from how high a pressure the depressurization occurs, as long as the final pressure is lower than the vapor pressure of the respective liquid (1 bar, ~ 60 mbar and blood in this case). --46.91.62.47 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The abstract you're talking about mentions: "It is suggested that the boiling of the blood denatured the lipoprotein complexes, rendering the lipids insoluble." This is based on p. 101 of the full source (you can find it on Google), which says: "In our cases, the blood must have begun to boil instantaneously, leading to an instantaneous and complete stop of the circulation."

You're very much right though that blood can't actually boil under atmospheric conditions (or ever if inside the body, according to this page). Their conclusion doesn't make sense in the context of the article anyway, since there are many mentions of hemorrhages. I suspect they're simply using "boiling" to refer to degassing. I think it's far more likely that the three divers died from extreme versions of decompression injuries such as barotrauma and stopped circulation. The fact that they died on the spot probably means they instantly passed out from hypoxia. The problem, however, is that the only forensic/medical source we have has given this diagnosis, which can't just be replaced by WP:OR.

For now, it's probably best to remove the mention of "boiling" and replace it with something like degassing. Swaggernagger (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)