User talk:RexxS

Please feel free to leave messages, comments, etc. here for me. I'll do my best to reply to you.

WP:SCUBA Newsletter Issue #1

Welcome Since this is the first issue of the WP:SCUBA Newsletter, I wanted to take a moment to welcome you as a charter member. We are starting a project with the goal of organizing an enormous amount of information, but as participation in WP:SCUBA expands, so will our editing power through collaboration. Please feel free to invite other interested Wikipedians to join our project.

Categorization of WP:SCUBA Articles I believe that we need to adopt a categorization system to begin organizing these articles. Some categories exist, such as Category:Diving equipment, and can be utilized. The end goal should be to have a set of general categories (less than ten I would hope) that can be used to categorize ALL articles that fall under the scope of this project. Subcategories can then be utilized where needed. This will also help us identify where work needs to be done to further the WikiProject as a whole. Please post comments at the bottom of this page and let me know what you think.

Article rating for WP:SCUBA As you are hopefully aware, we place the {{WPSCUBA}} template on the talk page of any article that falls within the scope of WP:SCUBA. It is a standard practice to use the Project Template to rate articles as stub, start, B, GA, A, etc. I invite you to research what is involved in setting up a rating and reporting system for WP:SCUBA as we currently do not rate our articles. This will help us identify the most important articles to our cause, and easily see which articles need the most work. Please feel free to post any questions on my talk page.

YMCA SCUBA It has been my personal goal to start creating articles to cover all of the major scuba diver certification agencies, and categorize them as Category:Diver training agency. On the List of diver training organizations YMCA SCUBA links to YMCA (diving organization), which then redirects to YMCA. The problem is that the YMCA article doesn't discuss their recreational diving program anywhere. I would like to start a separate YMCA Scuba article using the information on their Official Site, and fix the redirect at YMCA (diving organization) to point to the new article. I invite you to post your thoughts and opinions on these actions on my talk page.

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)

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!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)