User talk:RexxS/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rebreather

After I threatened to do so, Anthony brought the links and his possible conflict of interest with them up for discussion at WP:COIN. I tried to state my side of the story as best as I could. Themfromspace (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made some comments there. I really don't believe Anthony has a conflict of interest (in the classic sense), but has let his enthusiasm lead him into a writing style that neither of us approve of, because of all the external links. I suggest we carry on discussing how we would see the article on the talk page - after all, it's been like that for some time. If we can get any sort of compromise consensus, then that's progress and the article will be better off for it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Korn/Ferry Appreciation Society

Dearest Rexx, everyone here at Korn/Ferry appreciates your goor work in promoting our company. As one of the largest executive search firms we need to keep the money flowing. our bonuses were down significantly this year. Regards, Will Williamson Korn/Ferry Corporate VP

Only kidding :) Your changes were good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL !! --RexxS (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:POL

Please read this page; you are quoting out of context, and confusing what it says about policies with what it says about guidelines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can accept that I had to read the page in order to quote it (WP:PG is an alternative shortcut). I will have to respectfully disagree that I am quoting out of context. My quote from that page was this: "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus" (first sentence of second paragraph in the lead). You have my assurance that I am in no way confused about the differences between policy and guideline. Nevertheless, what I quoted is one of the things they have in common: they both express standards that have community consensus. I am quite happy also with the next sentence: "Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia". You will understand that the point I am making is that TE's use of this IAR exemption is neither rare nor made with the goal of improving the encyclopedia.

I should add that I believe your proposed principle has merit: indeed no policies nor guidelines are binding absolutely - they only have the force of the consensus that they document. But other users, not yourself, will seek to read into your proposal a freedom to ignore guidelines/consensus when it suits them. For that reason, I raised my concerns. I am truly sorry you see this as "bad faith". Nothing could be further from from the truth. --RexxS (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Extra! Extra! Read all bout it!

Even Rubin and Cole say Tennis expert has lost it. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Fetzer editor

I blocked again, this time for 48 hours. Since this is a BLP issue, we cannot let this go so easily. I don't think this user really cares about being constructive ... if he keeps at it, we have to block for longer periods. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:EUF-logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:EUF-logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification and all the explanation about orphaning, and I'm grateful for the suggestion I might put it back, but it was I who nominated it for deletion (as orphaned) after a more suitable image was found for the article. --RexxS (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hypobaropathy

I tagged this as a dicdef. Perhaps it should be redirected to the other word? Anyway, I'm dropping this notice on you. Make sure to do the right thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL - you don't send me the easy ones! It took me till now to sort out all the consequences, but I've created wikt:hypobaropathy and sourced/referenced it (followed by a small to-and-fro with another wiktionary editor about writing definitions as full sentences); slapped a CSD A5 on our version of the article; and notified the original author as nicely as I could. Hope this meets your exacting standards :D --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Took you long enough. Seriously though, are you sure it isn't Wikipedia material? It seemed like a clear case of the dicdefs to me at first, but now it seems kind of encyclopedic, just in need of some shaping up. Since the author keeps taking off the speedy tags it may be around for a while anyway, so perhaps we can discuss it more manyana. But I'm tempted to remove the speedy tag myself now upon reflection. I suppose I may have to actually look and see if there is anything in google books and google news. Aren't conditions of this sort inherently notable? New page patrol is clearly more trouble than its worth. Maybe I'm just suffering from a hypobaric environment? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that speedy deletion certainly was speedy. No loss really, since anything useful could just as well be put in Altitude sickness - in fact, the deleted article could just as easily have been a redirect to that. I suppose somebody could easily do that anyway if required. Hypobaropathy is also a subclass of Hypoxia where we have plenty of content as well. Keep up the patrolling - at least it keeps you out of ArbCom. --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I fear we've made a colossal mistake. There is hypobaropathy and hypobaric, both subject that seem notable enough for a combined aritcle. Air sickness is not really the same thing, nor is hypoxia. I think we have to accept fault for our terrible mistake. I feel so cold. Let me know if you need any help with the new article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't fret. First of all read Altitude sickness, an excellent article that could contain anything anyone wanted to write about hypobaropathy. Now, hypobaric just means "low-pressure" as an adjective; so we have, for example, the article Hypobaric chamber. A full text search shows where the adjective is used in Wikipedia, and it is already in 22 articles. I agree that both terms are notable, but as "hypobaropathy" = "hypobaric illness" = "altitude sickness", I can't see any need for anything more than a redirect - and only then if you think somebody may search for the term. Finally, "air sickness" is indeed not the same thing as "hypobaropathy", but "altitude sickness" is! --RexxS (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for the article to be recreated in my user space. I'm going to see what I can do with it. I'm racked with guilt and may not be able to sleep tonight...

Air sickness talks about motion and the inner ear and all this other stuff that's not directly related to pressue. Redirecting to hypobaric chamber might have been a good way to go, but it's too late now. The die is cast. I will stand only for full resurrection and ummm redemption or something. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You convinced me. I've withdrawn my request to recereate. I'm going to redirect to hypobaric chamber. Sorry for all the trouble I've caused. But it was all very exciting and dramatic while it lasted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps ease your mind or just confuses this more but "hypobaropathy" translates to the following search string in PubMed: "altitude sickness"[MeSH Terms] OR ("altitude"[All Fields] AND "sickness"[All Fields]) OR "altitude sickness"[All Fields] OR "hypobaropathy"[All Fields]

If the MeSH Term for this is altitude sickness, I would have to seriously consider that the first re-direct above is more correct. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That helps. I will change the hypobaropathy redirect to go to air sickness. Should hypobaric stay directed to hypobaric chamber though? I would think so. But if not feel free to correct. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Altitude sickness is not airsickness. The most appropriate might be to have a short description, maybe, sickness that occurs at altitude or while under hypobaric conditions (linking out to the others)? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Yes, of course. Thanks for cleaning up after me. I need a barf bag. Would one of you add a mention of hypobaropathy or hypobaric to the ALLTITUDE sickness article, bolded if possible. I don't want to do any more damage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference page numbers

I have been watching your edits to narcosis, have you considered a format like this "Brubakk and Neuman, p. 300" or "Brubakk and Neuman, chapter name, chapter author, p. 300" inside the ref tags? The book is in a bibliography section already so that seems like it would be a more clean solution, to me anyway... I generally don't like this cite style for journal articles or items used once but I think it is fine for books. (I like clicking a ref then following the url to it, can't stand seeing the short cite then looking down a LONG bibliography for something used once or twice) Here is an example: AHS Centaur. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right; that would be cleaner. What I'm doing at the moment is just temporarily breaking down the pages to force myself to find the exact text in B&E in preparation for an effort to knock the article into shape, so we can change the presentation of the refs anytime once I've got the pages. By the way, I couldn't find in 5th Ed a cite to support "Other sedative and analgesic drugs, such as opiate narcotics and benzodiazepines, add to narcosis." - do you know where it is? No big deal anyway, as there's already the Fowler & Hamilton cite to support it. Hopefully I'll find the time in the next few days (work has gone quiet) to do a lot more work on Nitrogen narcosis - feel free to join in! --RexxS (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so this bothered me since I knew there had to be a proper way to do the cite. I found a method on the Nobel gas page that is exactly what I was looking for! Check it out and let me know what you think. It is currently reference #63 on that page. The format looks like this: {{harvnb|Bennett|1998|p=176}}, inside ref tags. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant Gene! That's it exactly. We just need to add a parameter like "|ref=CITEREFBennett1998" to the {{cite book}} template in Bibliography and then we can use {{harvnb}} with the page parameter to give the pages we need each time. Possibly the "Bibliography" needs to become "References" and "References" become "Notes". I'll have a go at that. --RexxS (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

More: we don't have to use the {{harvnb}}. It may be simpler just to use something like <ref>[[#BE2003|Bennett & Elliott]] p.300</ref> along with a parameter "|ref=BE2003" in the Bibliography cite. It's documented at WP:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Wikilinks_to_full_references. See what you think? --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! Looks great! I actually like the way the sections are separated now. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nitrogen narcosis

Nitrogen narcosis

I made a few changes to the lede of this one; hopefully you'll think they're ok. FYI, I'm a qualified PADI diving instructor; I've provided the refs. Please see user:Chzz/10.

(I can try and look over the rest of the article one day, if you like, when I've got the time)

Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  16:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Strike-through text

Thanks Chzz, your edits do make the lede read better. I've restored just part of the first sentence as the term "nitrogen narcosis" is really a misnomer now that we know about the narcotic potency of many other gases. IMHO the article should be titled "Narcosis (diving)" as that is a truer indication of the contents, but that's something to discuss in the future. Thanks also for the refs - the article benefits from having a good spread of source material. If you get a chance to look over the rest of the article, that would be great - some of the sections are really thin, but need to be there to conform with WP:MOSMED. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of hypoxia...

What do you make of Ice-cream headache and the dispute over the photo? Is it medically accurate and illustrative enough? Also, I see there was a discussion on retitling the article to its current title from brain freeze, but I can't discern why it was moved other than that this terminology used to be more common. As you are a medical expert, I know I can count on you to sort this important issue out. Your work discerning altitude sickness from air sickness was outstanding and first rate. :) If any neutral Rexx fans want to weigh in they may do so also, but please, I must insist on the highest standards of objectivity, medical accuracy and impartiality for this critical subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've !voted to keep the photo and keep the current title. If it had a verifiable medical name, I'd have preferred that, with the common names as redirects. I've also added the ICHD code and expanded the description of the symptom with a PubMed cite. Hope that meets with your approval (even if I disagreed about the title :p). --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Investigating the search results, it appears your analysis of the standard terminology used for this malady is correct, although my personal preference is for the more generalized and descriptive brain freeze. There is some indication that this phrasing is catching on with the youth, so perhaps the future will be bright for a better outcome. :) Until then, and until a cure is found, take your time when imbibing slurpees... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I just noticed that the dispute and edit war continue. How fun to have dragged you in! I thought about pointing out that the headache article has a similar photo that requires an assumption of good faith and inference, but I don't want that photo removed too. :) I'm hiding all my photos, along with small children and pets. It's a jungle out there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

redundant refs on O2 tox page

Hey RexxS, writing here because I don't care enough to post this to the talk page on oxygen toxicity. I noticed you removed the Ken Donald refs to the journal articles that can be found by users and replaced them with the book that almost nobody has access to. I only question this because I hate seeing stuff used that can't be accessed when a perfectly good free resource is available. Academic professors as well as librarians also use it as a tool for finding more solid information so why not also include the items people can find so they can make their own minds up? Just a thought... I personally like both.

• Dagger J. (2008) Brave new world: Reference librarians in the age of Google. Duke Magazine. Volume 94, No.5) --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right of course, Gene. I only removed those two because they were next to the ref for the book in "History" and there were four cites in a row. They still exist as cites for "Signs and symptoms" but I wonder if there's a way of linking the two together? Or perhaps we should just take the book out of the refs altogether as it's cited in the bibliography anyway? What do you think? (FWIW, I borrowed the book from a friend in the early 90's and managed to keep it for almost 10 years until I had to give it back - and it's really hard to find now) --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said I had a solution or that I am in any way constructive. <g> I really don't like having something in the bibliography that is not also used in the article but that book is a key document in the literature. Sorry... Let's keep thinking on it, we will come up with something I am sure. It is a great book and I am lucky enough to have a copy that took me 10 years to find. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How about combining into a single ref something like this?

--RexxS (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it! I would add the word summarized rather than available. Nice! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) - as a compromise, I've added the word "summarized" but kept "available" as the whole point is to let readers know they can get the text online. Nevertheless, if you don't like it, please change it! I might try eventually moving that whole block to bibliography, so I can reference exact pages from the main text. That will have to be done to get the article to FA. I solicited comments from the Doctor's Mess as a prelude to moving to FAC, which is why "Doc James" made his comments. I don't actually expect the medics to understand the whole picture, but they may come up with something of real use. We'll just have to sift through. --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work!

Nice work cleaning up the mess that used to be at Sri Lankan Civil War. Have a cookie :)

Chamal ^talk has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Chamal ^talk 04:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Diving Almanac and Book of Record

Notable [[1]]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Might be a touch early (2 days old), but not notable as it stands and google doesn't give much hope it being established. Probably best delete. --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference request

I hate to distract you from the DCS article since you are doing such an awesome job but could you please add a reference that uses the term "Distance line" to that article? I proposed a name change to "guideline" that did not take but wonder if "Line (diving)" might be more appropriate. I have never used the term "distance line" for the purposes listed on the page and I can find no REAL references in my collection of books here that use the term. I thought you might have a BSAC manual that would be a good reference. Thanks in advance! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Consider me distracted. I don't have an up-to-date copy of the BSAC manual, as I'm an SAA member and my BSAC manual is dated 1964! Looking at the discussion at Talk:Distance line, I can only add that my experience would generally be the use of "distance line" when in a cave and the use of "guide line" when in a wreck, but I never thought about it much, so I may not be much help <grin>. Anyway, I'll search through my literature and see what I can find. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviews

I do not know of a "how to manual" for peer reviews here. One thing to do is pick somethiung that is either going to be up for good article or Featured Article and read the criteria (either WP:WIAGA or WP:WIAFA). Then see how you think the article meets the criteria. GA might be easier as the bar is lower. On the other hand, you write well and that is the hardest part for most potential FAs so poitning out places where the language could be smoother or the topics could be better organized also helps. It does not have to be an analysis of everything - just point out several places where things could be improved.

On another note, I looked at oxygen toxicity again and the ref for Dr. Ox does not mention the story. I found the full story on Google books (I must have read a livelier translation) so that could be used as one ref. I added it as an external link to the article on the short story, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'm going to have a go at a short review for Tay-Sachs disease to try and get a feel for what is needed. I found it at the backlog on your talk page :)

As for Dr Ox, I assumed that an interested reader would look at the Dr. Ox's Experiment article, but maybe I should include a direct ref within the ox-tox article as well? The ref at the end of the para was to support the "lack of scientific evidence" assertion - which I suppose is my commentary (i.e. WP:OR), or maybe it's justified as there really is no basis for the effects Verne describes. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would add a ref to Dr. Ox itself (linking the Google books text might work, not sure if there is commentary on it in your other sources). If you want me to look at your PR of Tay-Sachs, please ask (you don't need to ask, but I would be glad to look). I think the picture I saw was in a chemistry or biology textbook. Sorry not to be able to be more specific. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a ref in Oxygen toxicity to the 2004 translation available at Barnes & Noble, which conveniently has a short synopsis, probably enough to WP:Verify the sentence. I'd really appreciate it if you had the time to look at my attempt at a Peer Review for Tay-Sachs. I suspect I've been far too harsh, but it was an extraordinarily satisfying job and I hope that, with experience, I could make a contribution to the Peer review process. I'll keep looking for a picture, but User:Una Smith made an useful suggestion to swap images that I think helps with the image problem in the lead. Thanks again --RexxS (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

HWV258

I will ask no remedies, although I will not protest if ArbCom chooses to sanction him with the rest of us. I regret that Locke Cole did not take the chance to acknowledge that his actions were justifiable but imprudent.

Have I mentioned anywhere that User:HWV258 contains an assertion of belief in a 0-Revert Rule? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I can see little ground for protest either; and I sincerely regret as much as you do that Locke missed the chance to show how reasonable he undoubtedly can be. I do think 0RR is a mistake for any editor - one's ability to participate in BRD is hampered. One of the things I shall take from this is a resolve to firmly adhere to 1RR for myself however - and you have my permission in advance to berate me to your heart's content, if I slip from that. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Coming up with an alternative replacement for whatever the boldness was often pays for itself, though; I am surprised how often a minor and seemingly irrelevant tweak assuages an interminable revert-warrior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

An excellent point, and I was going to say worthy of mentioning in the WP:BRD article. Having taken a look at its talk page, I'll reconsider suggesting that! --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: List of Monster Trucks

Given that the one I deleted was per the proposed deletion policy there isn't much we can do with the other one. You may wish to open an Articles for Deletion discussion but since the original was deleted via PROD, it could have been restored upon request. Hope this helps. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole area of deletions seems such a minefield to me - not to mention the debate between categories and lists - I think I'm probably better letting somebody else worry about it. Thanks very much for your advice, it's much appreciated anyway. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You might want to contact User:Tavix. He is the one who proposed deletion of the original article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Just an FYI that you posted under a redirect on [2] and you might want to move it to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks for more attention. MBisanz ^talk 14:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew, I realised that and already put it there. The link at the top of the Proposed decision page took me there - can you fix it? --RexxS (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I am recused from that case, so I'll ask Ryan or Tip to do it. I did go ahead and protect the redirect and fix it in the template and open cases. MBisanz ^talk 15:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to do it myself (after I realised it's an editable page) but I think I'm better to leave the job to the clerks. Thanks again for your help --RexxS (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Must not

My experience with MOS suggests that you are wildly optimistic. Must not will be read into MOS, even where it does not occur in the text. I wish you luck with the effort to keep MOS sane, and hope -but not expect- to see it much improved in a year. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you are right on all counts. But I stay optimistic, and my talk page will always be open for anyone who wants to chew over whatever the latest catastrophe to befall MOS is. Best --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But, on the other hand, a parliamentary system will refrain from making some issues, even parts of its platform, votes of confidence. More importantly, perhaps, reread the RfC. Some of the support for the prevailing option does not realize that date linking is separate from autoformatting; some of it expresses only vauge support for the idea; some of it actually says that the voter would prefer something else. To make that an expression of strong support for the entire text is to reward Greg's revert-warring even beyond his expectations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted a handful of those comments when I reread the poll before posting yesterday, nevertheless my impression remains that even without them, the majorities are large for the prevailing options. The most important question is what can everybody accept as consensus - not easy, I agree. My view is to stop worrying about others getting rewarded (easier for me to say, I know) and concentrate on finding what we can put up with. At some point, that has to happen, even if everybody can't get all they want. --RexxS (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk archive

So RexxS, how did you set up your bot for auto archiving? Any lessons learned? I need to do that. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, it took me a while to work it out, but it's mainly automatic once set up. Take a look at the first section of this page. If you want to do the same, the code would be:

{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot III|age=28}} to produce the notice at the top, with:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(28d)
|archive = User talk:Gene Hobbs/Archive %(counter)d
}}
(and they have to be on separate lines) to get the bot to do the archiving, and

{{archive box|box-width=14em|}
:[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
}}
to make the box that shows the links to the archives.

Change the two occurrences of 28 to however many days you want before it gets archived and the 50K to set the maximum size for each archive. Documentation on MiszaBot is here. Nothing happens until MiszaBot does its regular run, so it may take a few days before it does its archiving. Have fun! --RexxS (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Louis Michel (oceanographer)

What is sub-sea intervention? Is it some sort of underwater AA meeting? Does it relate to air or altitidue sickness? Hypoxia? Hypothermia??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be more interesting if it were, but it's merely a fancy way describing the use of submersibles or underwater remote operated vehicles (ROVs) to sort out problems, usually like recovery from wrecks or closing down an oil drilling pipe when the weather gets bad.[3][4] I have little doubt that J-L M is notable, the Titanic expedition with Bob Ballard ought to take care of that. --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How does someone "discover" sub-sea intervention? Pioneered? Invented? But discover seems bogus. Another tall tale of the seas....

It reminds me of a plastic surgeon article I reviewed at AfD where the strongest case for notability was a study the guy did of twins in the late 90s where he determined that... sun, smoking and stress accelerate skin aging. Apparently no one knew that sun, smoking and stress were harmful before this guy's pioneering work. Needless to say, I have another suspicion about what his studying of "twins" was all about. That Diver Dan show seems weird. It's apparent that y'all took a lot of drugs in the 60s. I redirected. I can't wait to read the article you work up on sub-sea intervention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that "discovered subsea intervention" is a direct quote from the Institute for Archaeological Oceanography (IAO) - what would you expect from a university located in somewhere called "Rhode Island"? Although it could be an awkward translation from a French source, or we could perhaps blame the Canadians instead. I'd go with "pioneered" and ditch the {{fact}} tag.

Despite my great age, I wasn't actually around in the 60s (Boudica predates me by some years) - strange that the MOS tells us not to use "60's", when that does in fact redirect to my teenage years. My memory of Diver Dan places it as late 1950s, or very early 1960s, long before Bill was at Oxford and I was at Cambridge; I hope you will believe that neither of us inhaled. --RexxS (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, what is this about: Frank Freda? When it rains it pours. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I think I remember "Diver Dan".[5][6] Old Frank may have been notable in his day; and that would be sufficient now, if he were then. Somebody needs to assert he was notable though, otherwise it's a speedy. Have fun with that one. --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Last Dive

FYI and any page stalkers that are interested... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes like to imagine that Wikipedia might rival the Encyclopedia Galactica as the sum of all human knowledge. Have you read Asimov's Foundation? Of course, the encyclopedia in those stories turned out to be a cover for something much bigger. I keep waiting for our own Salvor Hardin to step up and explain that Wikipedia is really Hari Seldon's plan for a new Galactic empire.

Anyway, much as I'd love Wikipedia to cover every dive book, I think realistically that The Last Dive just isn't going to meet WP:BK's standards of notability. It has an ISBN (0060932597) and is available at Amazon, as well as some libraries, but that won't be enough. Sad, but life's too short to fight battles that can't be won. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. The book doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the New York Times or on Family Guy. Unless the event is notable, and then it could be mentioned there. Oh well. Maybe when they make it into a movie? And who has time to read when there's so much fun to be had online? "Book"??? Frak that. :) I'm waiting for holovision and my Atari simulator 7000. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec... What about [7], [8]??? The author appears to be a notable diving expert, author, and publisher of Immersed. "HarperCollins has paid about $600000 for worldwide rights to Bernie Chowdhury's first book proposal, The Descent." So much for relying on you buddy! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it would be a peculiar world where I was right 100% of the time. But I fear I might be here. The book has two chances of meeting WP:BK:

1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Now, this article: "Miller, Laura (October 29, 2000). "Out of Their Depth". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-06-24." looks to do the job. But I can't see the Chicago Tribune article or any of the other hits from the second link you give. So I can't prove that "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works".
2. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards, rather that the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes. Bernie Chowdhury is an experienced diver and the publisher of a fine diving magazine, but looking at the criticism of his books shows he's no Ernest Hemmingway. He's got enough press coverage to prove he's notable, but that's a long way short of "the book's author is of exceptional significance".

Anyway, it might still be worth making your argument in the AfD. There's always a chance that the closing admin doesn't go for a strict interpretation of WP:BK and give it the benefit of the doubt. Go for it! --RexxS (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Access blocked in the UK?

RexxS, I was wondering if you can see the full text pdf at this link? Does it require a subscription for you in the UK? At work it was free but checking it again at home, I still see it as free. I don't know where User:Eubulides is located but I wonder if this is the issue. I did ask the question here so I hope for some future guidance since I have used the ASEM links a bunch. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I got excited when I saw the thread title. I thought there might finally be an opportunity to get rid of all the frivolous Us, to correct the S's parading around as Zs, and to junk the outmoded metric system once and for all. Who ever heard of organizing a system measurement around factors of 10. Ridiculous! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, you should be so lucky, CoM! Anyway, Gene, I can see the full text fine - I just downloaded it. The document gets served from:

• http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/asma/00956562/v75n11/s11.pdf?expires=1246488170&id=51023570&titleid=8218&accname=Guest+User&checksum=390A27EDE4D419A645D80FFED11BF5FC

Eubulides usually likes to link to the actual document (although I think that has problems) so I tried removing all excess crap in that url (after the .pdf). I then got this message

• Your authentication to this fulltext delivery has expired. Please go back and try again by logging back into the site and requesting the document.

So the server will give the document to a "Guest User", but clearly has the ability to restrict access, depending on factors I can't determine. Eubulides may be falling fowl of those. Nevertheless, I would put that link back. Just because some readers can't access the full text, shouldn't stop us from offering it, for the benefit of those who can. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the factors involved is the time. If I've decoded that gibberish correctly, that long guest URL stopped working today at 22:42:50 UTC. Clearly we shouldn't use exploding URLs like that. I'm still dubious about the http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asma/asem/2004/00000075/00000011/art00011 URL. The parent table of contents marks the paper as "subscribed content" (as opposed to free content), which suggests that it isn't free to everybody. Hmmm, if you erase all your cookies and visit the journal home page what does the little "Signed in as:" area say to you? Does it require you to register? Eubulides (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

With cookies totally disabled: "Sign In" is completely blank. No requirement to register. Also, each entry up to Vol.79 Issue 7 has a blue "F" next to it, keyed as Free content. The parent table of contents you indicated also shows all articles as free in the same way. This is odd. I didn't realise I was so privileged. --RexxS (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

With all cookies gone it says "Sign in" but clicking the pdf still allows a download. ASEM has a 12 month embargo so recent files are always delayed which is why I have not been using anything recent as a reference. I have been adding the "dubious" links for quite some time and this is the first time they have come up as an issue (seems quite static).

I think the "time" issue goes two ways. It might take some time to click twice but if it were not there, it would take significantly more work to find. I asked about this on the template page because a significant number of the references I have added are not free to the general public and I wanted to know if I needed to remove those as well.

Thanks all! (and ChildofMidnight, sorry to be a tease <g>) --Gene Hobbs (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(o/d) The server headers for http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asma/asem/2004/00000075/00000011/art00011 are:

#1 Server Response: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asma/asem/2004/00000075/00000011/art00011

HTTP Status Code: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:10:38 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.41 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.8.31 OpenSSL/0.9.8h mod_jk/1.2.19 Expires: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 16:42:19 GMT Cache-Control: private, max-age=1200, must-revalidate Cache-Control: no-cache Pragma: no-cache Expires: Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT Set-Cookie: JSESSIONID=g4ta5vxrmpdl.victoria;path=/ Connection: close

Content-Type: text/html

which is nothing special. I wouldn't have thought there was an issue with using that server. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Very strange. I have reproduced the table of contents with the "F"s next to it, from a completely different IP address. Apparently from some IP addresses you get a "S" (for subscribed), but you can still read the article after some folderol; from others you get an "F" and can read it with some hassle. Anyway, I guess that's free enough, so I restored the URL. Sorry about the hassle. Eubulides (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You need never apologise to me - we're all dedicated to the same goal: improving the encyclopedia. And we now know something we didn't know before, so the pursuit of that has got to be worthwhile. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Today was full of good info. Thanks --Gene Hobbs (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbaric medicine

Thanks for your agreement about the autism claim within Hyperbaric medicine. I agree it should have been deleted, and considered deleting it myself as it seemed quite outlandish and did not have any citations, but I didn't want to overstep my bounds, still only being an occasional contributor to Wiki. Elbreapoly (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nitrox vs 100 percent O2

Sorry rexxs, I don't know how else to contact you!

With regard to Nitrox, it is impossible to have a 100% O2 Nitrox mix since there is no nitrogen or mix, therefore technically the highest nitrox mix possible is 99%, Well I suppose you could have 99.9999999recuring but what would be the point? Also as a mixed gas diver myself, in reality divers would rarely use a nitrox mix higher than 80% since you start to hit the cost, benefits and safety limits. Most divers would chose 100% O2 rarther than nitrox > 80%. Such high O2 mixes are used for final shallow water decompression schedules typically at or above a 6m depth. Since the partial pressure safety threshold for 100% O2 is 1.6, It would be perfectly safe to breath O2 at or above 6m. Having said that, it is recommended that nobody should breath 100% for extended periods, and depending on the demands of the decompression schedule, 'air breaks' would be taken to prevent extended exposure to O2. These of course would have been previously calculated in the gas plan prior to the dive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.41.221 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)