User talk:RexxS/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Underwater photography

You reverted (diff) the pixel width I inserted for the clownfish picture. I don't know why it was so, but before that edit, the picture displayed at about 1 or 2 pixels width and about twenty or thirty pixels height (the picture itself, its frame was fairly normal), in my browser, which is Firefox 3.XXX. It was unusual...I've not seen that happen before. With the width removed and the page purged, the image displays fine now. It would be interesting to understand what the deal was with that. Newportm (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The image rendering software on the servers has been having problems for several days. You almost certainly were a victim of that. Let's hope the developers fix it soon. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dynamics of decompression workshop.

Thought you might enjoy this recent addition:

• Huggins, Karl E (1992). Dynamics of decompression workshop. University of Michigan. Retrieved 2009-07-17.

--Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It came down at about 50 kB/s - I obviously need to send a donation to help buy some better servers for you <g>. Looks an excellent ref, thanks!

I just fetched out my copy of

• Powell, Mark (2008). Deco for Divers. Southend-on-Sea, UK: AquaPress. ISBN 1-905492-07-3.

to compare with. I know Mark from his SAA National work (we usually end up in arguments with Bob Cole), and it's up-to-date, so it's my preferred reference book. Anyway, I was about to ask if you knew the book when I idly glanced at the Acknowledgements: "Gene Hobbs ... was extremely helpful in the development of this book" - hehehe, I should have known better; What a small world! --RexxS (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, was not awake when I posted this apparently. Mark's book is excellent. His attention to detail and willingness to seek out experts for comment before going to press is VERY noteworthy. From what I can tell, most of the minor comments I made were included in the first edition.

Sorry about the slow speed. We are working to get it out of my house and co-locate on a T1 but we need a little more Navy money first. When it moves, we also hope we can update to the current version of the software as well as improve the overall utility of our main site. Guess time will tell... Enjoy! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen toxicity

I had changed that article to say that it was a gas that contained more than 21% oxygen and the remainder consisting of nitrogen. The IP address guy changed to the 100% oxygen thing again. My big theory is really it is a gas just consisting of Oxygen & nitrogen. Look forward to your response.

Thanks for pointing it out any how.

Krj373 (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats in order

		The Original Barnstar
		Congratulations on the promotion of Oxygen toxicity to FA status. You put in a lot of work, and it's appreciated. Eubulides (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once more to both of you. I know that it never would have happened without your contributions, advice and encouragement. Believe me, the real satisfaction in the process comes from working together to achieve a common goal, and you both are much appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your hard work on the promotion of Oxygen toxicity to FA status. Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Snuba

Yes, it's looking much better now. I normally go ahead and let AfDs run their course, but I suppose I could withdraw it if you felt it was necessary. Powers ^T 01:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nitrogen narcosis at GAC

Hi Steve, I know this is a long shot, but in Nitrogen narcosis I'm trying to find a source for the statement

An early effect may be loss of near-visual accommodation, causing increased difficulty in close-accommodation reading of small numbers in middle-aged or older divers who already have any degree of presbyopia

which you added with this edit back in June 2007. Do you recall any source that verifies it? I know it's true, because it happens to me! but I can't find anything in the literature that confirms it. Best regards and thanks in advance for any help you can give. --RexxS (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's original research, as it happens to me and every other middle-aged diver I know. But I can't find a source, either. We should try the more extensive literature in nitrous oxide and other anesthetic gases. Otherwise we'll have to take it out. Bummer, since I'm sure I'm right, and when I added it, I thought there'd be no difficulty finding a cite at all. Guess the problem with the Navy divers is they're all too young for presbyopia, and thus for this problem to bother them. SBHarris 03:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - August 2009 Issue

Summary: Our Initiatives are starting to be developed - please get involved! In this newsletter, we also announce the results and prizes for Wikipedia Loves Art, and we bring you the latest on our Charity status application, in addition to our regular features on Other Chapters' Activities, recent Press Coverage and recent and upcoming Meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

1. Initiatives
2. Wikipedia Loves Art prizes
3. Charity status update
4. Other Chapters' Activities
5. Press Coverage
6. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WASAC

Hi, I created the stubs Welsh Association of Sub Aqua Clubs and Hoci Tanddwr Cymreig Underwater Hockey Wales recently, as part of a series on the Governing bodies of sports in Wales. Hoci Tanddwr Cymreig Underwater Hockey Wales was tagged as needing 3rd party reliable sources. I noticed you are involved in SCUBA pages and wondered if you knew of any WP:RSs I could use. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if you ever need third-party sources, I've found that the first place to look is Google News Archives - this search shows 17 hits for "octopush wales" (use "octopush" rather than "underwater hockey" in google searches as it avoids interference with normal hockey).

Sadly, none of them seem specific enough to meet the challenger's request for third-party cites, but they show that South Wales Echo (Cardiff) and Western Mail (Cardiff) write articles about Underwater Hockey/Octopush. The next step is either to see if you can search archives of those two newspapers online - if not, you'd have to contact them and ask if they have a reporter who regularly writes on underwater hockey, and track down their articles in a library (not a quick process).

The other place that may show up third-party sources is a straight Google search for "Hoci Tanddwr Cymreig", which returns 150 results. You may need to sift through all of those. Annoyingly, most of the hits seem to be sites mirroring the Wikipedia content! Repeating the exercise using Google News Archives shows no results, as does the GNews Archive search for "Underwater Hockey Wales".

It seems it's going to be difficult to find much more. At this point, you can try to expand the article to cover some of the information that you've found with all that searching <grin> and then cite it. BTW, the article is probably start-class, rather than stub - get rid of that template and it can be re-classed easily.

Having said that, I think the reference you have already:

• "Governing Bodies of Sport-Sports Council for Wales". Sports Council for Wales Cyngor Chwaraeon Cymru website. sports council wales. 2007. Retrieved 2009-07-24.

seems to be independent of the article's subject and is a Government body (or quango) and is certain to be a reliable source. I'd be tempted to remove the template that Beeblebrox added and make a note on the article talk page that you consider Sports Council for Wales a WP:RS. Please feel free to discuss more here if you feel I can help. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply RexxS. Please feel free to reassess to Start Class if you wish (I'm not too sure, myself). South Wales Echo (Cardiff) and Western Mail (Cardiff) are found at WalesOnline. No joy with the search there, though. The Sports Council for Wales citation was for the statement that the Welsh Association of Sub Aqua Clubs is the governing body of underwater sports in Wales - Hoci Tanddwr Cymreig Underwater Hockey Wales aren't on the SCW list, but are noted by WASAC. I've spent a fair amount of time looking for 3rd party reliable sources/references. It's possible that there just aren't any (online, anyway). If you happen to come across any refs for Hoci Tanddwr Cymreig Underwater Hockey Wales on your travels, please add them to the article. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen toxicity

Thanks for helping me out. I just had a question you might be able to help me with. Is it really necessary to have external links to different webpages on the same external link? I mean, wouldnt it make more sense to just mention the homepage once in an article? Lars Washington (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, it's on the front page! ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I know - I've spent all day reverting the vandalism <grin>. Now come and help me sort out all the attention it's received on its talk page :D --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lars, no I wouldn't think it is a good idea to have different webpages on the same external link. I think that WP:ELNO number 13 gives good guidance: mention the homepage once, but there may be a case for deep links to a particular external page if it provides specific useful information that could not be incorporated into the article. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I'm dismayed by the nature of the comments received. I've already spent a long time trying to rebut non-existent/trivial complaints — and I see that you have spent even more time. By the way, you're doing a great job. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's the price we pay for having it on the Main Page. Scuba diving does seem to attract more than its fair share of folk with strong, if eccentric opinions. Nevertheless, we've made some improvements to the article that might not have been made without such intense scrutiny - and I really think Yobol (talk · contribs) was a good find; you should recruit him/her for Pulmonology! Thanks again for keeping such a level head; I would have been at my wits' end without your help. --RexxS (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's becoming painful. Thanks for your most recent response. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Buddy check

Actually procedure was a disam page when I made that edit. I made it a non-disam page shortly after that. I actually made it a non-disam page for that reason. This is how the page looked when I made the edit to Buddy check. It was a disam page and yet it wasn't. That's why I made the change. Procedure and the specific applications of the term are 2 different things. So you had lots of pages correctly pointing to a disam page, which sort of defeats the purpose of a disam page. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 13:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - September 2009 Issue

Summary: This month, our Initiatives Director explains our Initiatives, we update you on our Membership (including some new benefits for members!), keep you informed on our Charity Status application, and update you with our regular sections regarding Other Chapters' Activities, Press Coverage, and UK Meet-ups!

In this month's newsletter:

1. Initiatives
2. Membership
3. Charity status update
4. Other Chapters' Activities
5. Press Coverage
6. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen Bar

Fair enough (I'd still say the currency ones should have stayed) but you also reverted my fixing the unprofessional looking "U.S.A." to "United States", which I've changed back. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Rosen's

Hey Rexx. Just got my new copy of Rosen's about 2 weeks ago. Textbooks it seems are like automobiles 2010 comes out in the fall of 2009. Therefore the publisher page says copyright 2010. I have always seen HBOT refer to therapy rather than treatment but assume that they are the same thing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a really good book - I'll look out for a copy (UK is always a bit behind). I'm used to always seeing HBO treatment in a diving context (as in management of DCS), but I checked out medical definitions and the two terms seem to be pretty much synonymous in most cases. I did find an example of treatment particularly meaning an attempt to cure, and therapy indicating an attempt to remove symptoms, but that was in mental health and I'm never too sure about shrinks <grin>. --RexxS (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe on is British and one American? Does not matter to me however which one we use.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Developing Countries

Yes, but I reverted it myself :)--Something12356789101 (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You did indeed, and after only five minutes. Thank you. I intended merely to remind you that it was inappropriate in the first place :) --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

EB disorders

Speedy deletion isn't the process for getting a category renamed. Could you please repost your request via {{cfr-speedy}} instead? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help here. I must say it's puzzling when WP:CSD#Categories quite specifically gives {{db-speedyrename}} as a synonym for {{db-c2}} and the template itself states This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a category being speedily renamed. This includes correcting typographical errors, expanding abbreviations, fixing capitalization, ensuring compliance with category naming conventions, and converting between singular and plural noun forms (my emphasis). Why do we need two templates to do the same job? Should the documentation at WP:CSD#Categories be updated to reflect that this is the wrong process for renaming a category? --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That template is actually meant to tag the outgoing category as deletable after the cfr-speedy process has been followed. That is, once the suggested name (or another alternative) is agreed on by cfr, then the old category will get {{db-speedyrename}} put on it. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha - the penny has dropped! I understand now. Thanks again. Although I think the text of the template should therefore read "a category which has been speedily renamed", rather than using the present tense, wouldn't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll make a couple of adjustments :-) Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And another thank-you for listing the proposed rename at WP:CFDS; it took me a little while to work out that was another necessary step in the process. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Another silhouette needed

Hi. It was really a brilliant idea with the silhouette! Looks great! Now, could you make a silhouette of this image as well? It's intentionally being kept rather orphan, being brought out when it's really necessary. This seems just like such an occasion. So, perhaps File:Upper body front.png or something like that is enough to state as source image in its info page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mikael. I've made the silhouette as an svg - File:Human body silhouette.svg - at the same size as the original, i.e. 970 x 2200, but it scales as needed since it's a vector file. I've used the same colours and transparency as the example I posted, but those can be altered as needed. It is about 50% transparent just in case there's ever a need to place anything behind it. Hope that suits what you need, but it's a quick job for me to alter it if you want me to. --RexxS (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Byford dolphin

Thanks for the notification. I'll contribute to the AN3 once I review the history of the page. -Reconsider the static (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. DJ Clayworth has been able to find some much better news sources, and has replaced the contentious paragraph with a neutral, sourced one that seems to cover what Mark.T2009 wanted see in there. I'm happy that we've got a properly-sourced article again, so hopefully it's all blown over. Thanks for your helpful advice. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Cave diving

Hi Thank you for moving the CDG manual link to a better area.

Andrew

About me. http://www.lot46.com French cave diving

http://a-m-ward.blogspot.com Lots to scroll through if you have the time J

Cave diving and caving photos. http://www.flickr.com/photos/amward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.145.140 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I'm sorry if I was somewhat brusque with my edit summaries when I moved the link. When you start out, it can be difficult for you to work out what the conventions are in Wikipedia - and I sometimes forget that. If you do need any help at all with editing, please feel free to drop me a line here and I'll do my best to help.

Thanks for those links, you have some wonderful photos there. The ones crawling through caves and those showing equipment were particularly interesting. Have you considered making some of them available to Wikipedia? Wikipedia has far too few images and your photos would be useful in many articles. If there are any you'd be willing to release under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, I'd be happy to help you do that. --RexxS (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I did the original work for the CDG wikipedia entry although as a hardware engineer I try and avoid anything that looks like code (unless it is for a PIC :-).

>images and your photos would be useful in many articles.

I have no problem with them being used as long as I know which ones.

I have more here (sorry) http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/AMWard

I should also admit a vested interest in the CDG manual I was the co-editor. Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.145.140 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Found my password and loggged in now :-) Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMRW (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a Job Well Done

RexxS, Thank you for participating in Chzz's RfA. Many of us suspected that Chzz was a problem user, but it was work by people like you, who saved the day. Rogue Admins. and Bureaucrats pose a real risk to Wikipedia. Thanks Again - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and for taking the time to express them. I appreciate that - although the actual Bureaucrats (not the ones you intended) might not agree with me :) --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Suicide

My opinion is that all the image should be the same size as per WP:image and that if people are unable to see them and wish to they can click on them. It gives Wikipedia a cleaner look. On the obesity page we have similar maps set at default. I know however that some disagree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus on having all images the same size has shifted somewhat this year. WP:image is a guideline and is expected to have exceptions. In the section describing "Forced image size", it points to Image use policy – Displayed image size and Manual of Style – Images. These are policies and generally have fewer exceptions. The former sets a limit of 500px high and 400px wide to accomodate small displays. The latter is really the best exposition of current policy and indicates that "A picture may benefit from a size other than the default", going on to list examples of where forced image size may be appropriate. I do understand that having a cleaner look is a reason for regularising image sizes, but it cannot be taken to override the factors outlined at MOS:IMAGES, and I'd advise seeking consensus before making wholescale changes. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Everything (software)

Thank you for supporting Everything (software) at its deletion discussion. I recognize that probably none but the early voters would have commented had you not reminded people of the discussion, and I'm very grateful that you did. I'll also thank you again for illustrating the Wikipedian notion of notability with concrete examples. Believe me, I never would have guessed what was lacking without them. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I hate to see anyone's efforts removed, and getting to grips with the idiosyncrasies of how Wikipedia works takes time. It's unfair to expect keen editors such as yourself to pick it all up at once, so I always feel bound to try to help if I can. If you ever need assistance, please feel free to drop me a line here. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content

Are you interested in dermatology-related content? I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!, history of dermatology, or list of dermatologists pages? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? ---kilbad (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert on any medicine-related topic, but I'm always willing to help. Perhaps I can do some copyediting or reviews for you: I'll watchlist the above and try to find time to look at some of the articles in List of cutaneous conditions. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! ---kilbad (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Byford Dolphin

Please make sure you have your facts straight before going ahead with a citation needed dispute, have you even bothered to read the NOU commission report of march the 22nd 1984 on the subject, where it clearly states that norske veritas issued a safety law regarding ail-safe hatches and interlocking mechanism demand back in 1982, prior to the accident. Do you at all understand the term dispensation within the oil indsutry? Mark.T2009 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What you must understand RexxS, is that you cant just toy around with the original authors article, the way you do with disregard for the information submitted through the authors contributes via sourced material. I know your a clear sceptic, but your full of contriditions at the same time also. Now your asking DJ Clayworth, a man with a history of confrontational editing including recent personal attacks in comments, for advice on what do.. Such display of tunnel vision, when you should consider alternatives to your preferred line of thought on the dispensations issue. In what scenario do you think dispensations where implemented on the byford dolphin? 3 ex royal navy ship divers where killed on the Byford Dolphin, show consideration & respect for the decease menMark.T2009 03:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.T2009 (talk • contribs)

You don't own the article and being the original author does not give you the right to add speculation and pursue your soapboxing.

The content you insist on placing there is not cited to any reliable source

DJ Clayworth is an editor whom I don't know, but he has over 34,000 contributions over more than six years and is an administrator. I expect he's dealt with your kind before and will be able to help me rid the encyclopedia of your disruption.

You'll find that the only personal attack was made by you, in your edit summary when you referred to DJ Clayworth's edit as vandalism. You need to learn what vandalism is - and it most certainly is not the removal of unsourced content.

If you can find a proper source that says dispensations were given, then that can go in the article. Otherwise, no.

I was wondering how long it would be before you tried to play that card. I have immense respect for the work done by those pioneer divers. If you ever managed to dive to the sort of depths that those brave men did - as I have - you'd understand how much empathy I have for them. I also have great sympathy for their families, and even share their sense of injustice in they way they have been treated by the Norwegian government. What you are completely unable to appreciate is that wikipedia is not the place to wage your campaign. This is an encyclopedia and we only report what reliable sources have stated. No matter how much sympathy I have for your cause, I have no sympathy with the disruption you are causing. It needs to stop now. --RexxS (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me just straight out some matters here, first of all im not campaigning for any orgnaisation, neither am I affiliated with the NSDA, nor mentioned or promoted their organisation or work here on wikipedia. I contributed an article describing the decompression accident of nov 5 1983 onboard the byford dolphin, purely as an informational article under wikipedia neutral stance. As the story was almost unknown & lacked sources on the internet back in 2005. I am not a single purpose account, nor do I intend to be distruptive towards wikipedias policy. the main problem is that we cant reach consenus regarding the dispensation issue, betwenn the current 3 editors editing the article for content. I have added 2 sources backing up the dispensation claims 1 from Tom Wingen at pioneerdivers.org the other one in detail through the newly realeased publication book , and asked for a 3rd party opinion. Neither have been verified, by a neutral 3rd party. Blanking out sourced paragraphs is vandalism, and im not having that any way, no matter if you cant read the sources language or order it through a libary or not its still a verifiable source, wikipedia allows the use of foreign language sourcers, if their currently the ones only available. Im also suprised that you still feel the dispansations made claim is controversial or speculative, on a obsolete dive system dating 1975, which only had a bolted clamp to lock and seal the pressure on the thunnel trunk connected betwenn the dive bell and chamber, which could be manually opened with a wrench & knocked off with a hammer, do you honestly think it meet the safety requirements of offhsore diving in Norway back in 1983. It didn't thats why comex under pressure from ELF and veritas, filed for dispensations on modified safety equipment to the norwegian oil directorate, who had an ex comex employee as director within the dive section department within OD who handled & granted comex's dispensation requests, the puzzle is quite clear & described in publication. Mark.T2009 16:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.T2009 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss our disagreements so politely. I've never suggested you were campaigning on behalf of anybody, but I do believe you are using wikipedia to campaign on an issue. Your account has 68 edits to date; 99% of those are on the subject of Byford Dolphin - if that does not define a 'single purpose account', I don't know what does. I disagree with your description of the main problem. As I see it, you introduced claims which contradicted the original committee's findings, without providing a reliable source to support that. You have subsequently edit-warred to reinsert that material on numerous occasions and against the concerns of at least three editors. That is what I classified as disruption. I accept that you believe the sources you used were reliable, but more than one editor has already told you that pioneerdivers.org does not meet our standards for a reliable source. I am genuinely pleased that you have now found a book (albeit in Norwegian), that seems to support your claims. I only ask that you comply with the policy that you quoted to me, and give a quote of the original text in the book, so that the source can be verified. I even looked at the Byford Dolphin article on the Norwegian wikipedia in the hope that the source had been used there, so it could be verified, but alas, it is not mentioned there yet. I will remind you once again that the onus is on the editor adding material, when challenged, to show that their source is reliable and the material is verifiable. Removal of material which is not verifiable and sourced reliably is not vandalism, and it is again disruptive to accuse another editor of that, when they remove such material in good faith.

As you insist on asking me, let me try to dissociate my own personal views on the tragedy from my views of what is appropriate for wikipedia. I believe that:

• Byford Dolphin did not have a fail-safe on the clamp;
• a dispensation was issued allowing it to be operated unsafely;
• the disaster was caused by that lack of safety equipment;
• the original committee covered up those facts and unjustly blamed human error;
• the Norwegian government refused to acknowledge their responsibilities to those affected until threatened with legal action.

But my personal opinions count for nothing when it comes to what we may include in a wikipedia article. We have to have sources that back up what we write. If it turns out that the book you have found supports what I believe, then I'll be more than happy to see those facts included in the article. If you are still having problems with making references in the way wikipedia requires, I'll do my best to help. Just quote any of the relevant text from the book here (in Norwegian) and we can work on a translation that supports what you want to say. I'll even format the references for you if you wish. I genuinely hope that you find a passage that supports the issue about the dispensation, as that appears to be only claim left that you wish to see included. May I take this opportunity to remind you that you have reverted on the same page at least 4 times in the last 24 hours, and risk being blocked for violation of WP:3RR --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding proper dash use

If you had a moment, would you consider skimming over the list of cutaneous conditions and making sure the dash use looks good? ---kilbad (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to.

• Emdashes: The three emdashes in the lead are correct. The emdash in Parasitic infestations, stings, and bites at animals belonging to the following phyla—Arthropoda, Chordata, Cnidaria, Nemathelminthes, Platyhelminthes, Annelida, and Protozoa is technically correct, in that it is a sharp break in the flow of the sentence. But it's too strong for my taste there. I'd recommend a colon followed by a space as the usual introduction to a list. You only need an emdash where you are trying to make a strong interruption. ref: WP:EMDASH & WP:MOS#Colons.
• Endashes: Muckle–Wells, Senear–Usher, Melkersson–Rosenthal, Fox–Fordyce, etc. as well as "Lupus erythematosus – lichen planus overlap syndrome" are all correct according to MOS. But I think MOS requires spacing in Erythema multiforme minor–erythema multiforme von Hebra. ref: WP:ENDASH.
• Endashes & Emdashes: In the Virus-related section, there are a pair of spaced endashes (a stylistic alternative to unspaced emdashes) thus: caused by two main groups of viruses – DNA and RNA types – both of which are obligatory intracellular parasites. This breaches consistency, i.e. use unspaced emdashes or spaced endashes, but don't mix the usage in the same article. ref: WP:MOS#Spaced en dashes as an alternative to em dashes.
• Hyphens: I don't like multiply hyphenated phrases, so I'm suspicious of Oculo-oral-genitial syndrome, but I can't see a better alternative. ref: WP:HYPHEN.
  • Graham-Little syndrome should be Graham–Little syndrome as above.
  • I also think Intermittent hair-follicle dystrophy should be Intermittent hair–follicle dystrophy
  • and Nail-patella syndrome should be Nail–patella syndrome (and in that article Turner-Kiser syndrome definitely should be Turner–Kiser syndrome) done.
  • Ferreira-Marques lipoatrophia should be Ferreira–Marques lipoatrophia
  • 4p- syndrome is problematical, as grammar suggests there should be no space, but it may be that this is a peculiar exception because of the number. What do the sources use?

I can't see any other problems, but I'm a bit bleary now from staring at horizontal lines! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback. In response, I have changed the above sentences to caused by two main groups of viruses–DNA and RNA types–both of which are obligatory intracellular parasites and animals belonging to the following phyla: Arthropoda, Chordata, Cnidaria, Nemathelminthes, Platyhelminthes, Annelida, and Protozoa. I have also moved the respective articles over to Intermittent hair–follicle dystrophy, Nail–patella syndrome, and Erythema multiforme minor – erythema multiforme von Hebra. However, a follow-up question, in the case of Graham–Little syndrome and Ferreira-Marques lipoatrophia, those names represent one person (i.e. it was Dr. Graham-Little and Dr. Ferreira-Marques); therefore, I am wondering if that affects the dash choice? Also, with regard to 4p- syndrome, that is the dash and spacing used in the texts I own. ---kilbad (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops! My bad. I just assumed when there was a Name1 and Name2 in a syndrome, it was because they were the surnames of two different people. You're quite right, when it's a single person with a double-barrelled surname, then the hyphen is unquestionably correct. That's what you get for asking someone who's completely unfamiliar with medical personalities :) I just checked: at least I was right about Turner–Kieser syndrome (John Turner & Williband Kieser). I've sorted out Graham-Little syndrome. --RexxS (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy RexxS's Day!

User:RexxS has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as RexxS's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear RexxS! Peace, Rlevse 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't deserve to be in the company of those illustrious Wikipedians, but I appreciate your kindness and thought very much. Thank you, Rlevse, for bringing some joy into so many editors's lives, one day at a time :) --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I noticed you edited Limb salvage surgery several times and I just wondered if you knew someone or if you had a limb salvage. You don't have to answer this question if you want to. I was just wondering. - BennyK95 - Talk 20:03, November 16 2009 (UTC)

Hi Benny. I'm sorry but I have no experience of limb salvage surgery. If you look at my five edits beginning with this one, you'll see I was only wiki-gnoming a new article - removing overlinking; linking targets like tumor; cleaning up grammar; etc. in each section. At some point I'll revisit it and tidy up the references so they all use cite templates if they still need them. It's the kind of stuff I do, mainly to set an example for relatively new users on the sort of things that wikipedia likes, so they can copy it. I saw your comments at the doctor's mess when you first arrived and watchlisted Limb salvage surgery to see if you needed further help. I can't help you at all with content, but I'm always pleased to explain wiki-techniques to the best of my ability - I've run the gauntlet at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, so that should be a plus. If you need any help in "things-that-aren't-content", please feel free to drop me a line here. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you for helping. Have a great day! - BennyK95 - Talk 21:21, November 16 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

It's good to be back. I'll try to keep my wikistress to a minimum this time around, although I still care alot, I promised myself I'd never be a prima donna a quit in a huff... so, oh well, but it probably won't happen again any time soon. ;-) -- Kendrick7^talk 03:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC) <-- it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it

No Problem

I will definitely try to start adding editing notes to the articles that I edit. You want me to add them to the talk pg? What would be an example of what you want me to put on the talk page after I edit the article? I am in medical school and sometimes I have very little time to edit the articles, yet alone add info to the talk pg and put references but I will try to improve my editing. I have been trying to do my share to make wiki a better site so thanks for your input. Orlandoturner (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was making two suggestions: edit summaries; and citing the text you add. It was the latter I was suggesting making a note on the article talk page. You clearly know a lot about medicine, but for non-medics like me, we like to look at where pieces of information come form. So, for example in Minimum alveolar concentration, section Common MAC values, you might have got those values from a book called Anaesthetist's Handbook by Nok Emout, page 123, published by Chloroform Press in 2008. I was offering to help you make the reference <ref name="emout2008">{{cite book |last=Emout |first=Nok |title=Anaesthetist's Handbook |date=2008 |publisher=Chloroform Press |page=123}}</ref> which would show up like this.

Emout, Nok (2008). Anaesthetist's Handbook. Chloroform Press. p. 123.

I know they can be difficult to format until you get the hang of it, so I was offering to help you with that; or just saying that you could quote the book, journal, website, etc. on the article talk page and someone will come along and insert the formatted reference. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

User_talk:HappyInGeneral#Ice_diving Good catch! Sorry, and Thank You! I'll try to be more attentive next time. Also I changed the warning into a Thank You note. Thank You again. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How to Tag a article in need of editing?

The article Risperidone needs desperate attention, I altered some information but most of it is just plain wrong. Thanks a lot Orlandoturner (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your best bet is to tag the article with {{Expert-subject|Pharmacology}} and make a new section at WT:WikiProject Pharmacology requesting some help. In the unlikely event that you don't get any feedback from an expert there, copy the section to The doctors' mess where I'm certain you'll find some assistance, even though they may not necessarily be specialists. Please let me know if you still need more help. --RexxS (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

If you have a moment, could I get your input regarding acronyms in the list of cutaneous conditions? Thanks again for all your help! ---kilbad (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made few comments there. Hope it helps! --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Coffee

Thanks for the feedback and pointers.

1. According to Template:Cite journal#Legend, If a DOI or PMID is available, the URL should only be specified if it would point to a different page to that which a DOI or PMID would redirect to.

2, 3. Yes.

4. Was not clear that full name is preferred. I use the Diberri template filler and full name is not an option.

5. The month is useful in {{Cite journal}} and doesn't hurt. The Diberri template filler frequently provides it.

6. I copied the title from the publisher's description.

7. According to Template:Cite_book/doc#Usage, date is used for the full date. It doesn't state that date is preferred over year when only the year is specified.

8. It is a bug in the Diberri template filler.

9. Was not clear that journal full name is preferred from reading {{Cite journal}}.

There are discrepancies between the various WP MOS documentation and the documentation for the templates used to implement the citations.

24.60.190.107 (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --RexxS (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)