User talk:RexxS/Archive 1

Breathing performance of regulators

Good article for being anew user. I've gone through and just reformatted and reworded a couple of things. Other than that a solid contribution. Keep it up!. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		For having the courage and ability to create new articles like Breathing performance of regulators MBisanz talk 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi there RexxS. Welcome to Wikipedia. Looking at your contributions and reading your newly created userpage, you might be interested in joining the SCUBA WikiProject. They work as a collaborative team to bring/keep other articles up to Wikipedia standards, and I'm sure your expertise would be much appreciated there if you haven't discovered them already! They have a "to do" list that you may be able to help with as well. Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay! Keeper | 76 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

I replied to your question on Talk:Heliox

Hey there RexxS, you seem to be settling in quite nicely. I replied to your stub and unref questions here. cheers, Keeper | 76 16:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do to about a Spammer

RexxS, sorry for the delay in responding to your question. You can find Wikipedia's policy on Spammers at WP:SPAM. I recommend you take a look at Warning Spammers specifically. You will use the template on this page to warn Scuba diva on his/her talk page. Let me know if you have any other questions. Gr0ff (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Decompression sickness

I'm not going to deface the nice article you've improved with another ugly maintenance tag. At the time I added the {{refimprove}} tag back in January, the article was quite long, but was only supported by a single reference. You've done well. Very well in fact. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 07:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference formatting

RexxS, VERY nice work on the noble gas update. One resource for adding references that helps save me time is User:Diberri's PubMed tool for wiki journal reference markup. Since we have similar interests, I have also placed some of the references I use most often in my sandbox so I don't need to re-write or remember/ look-up formats (please add or update it at will). Thanks again for your hard work and hope this helps! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Gene, and especial thanks for the pointers to the PubMed tool and those references. I'll do my best to share anything I find useful, but I suspect your skills in referencing far outweigh my abilities :) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar! I love that tool but urls that do not come from PubMed do not automatically show up and they have to be pulled by hand (journals from diving literature: Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2003 to current, Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine from 1992 to the one year embargo, all of the Undersea Biomedical Research articles). It does save some time though. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene Hobbs (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hydrox

Hi Rexxs, could you, as a scuba diver, translate fr:Hydrox ? Cheers Mion (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I can - I'll make a subpage here User:RexxS/Hydrox and give it a go. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah, perfect. Mion (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer DP or crosslink ? Mion (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No real preference, dab-link is easier, but there's a dab-page used for Trimix - the diving use is called Trimix (breathing gas) so maybe we should follow that scheme. I don't really know whether cookies take primacy over the gas :D --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So dab-it :)Mion (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created Hydrox (breathing gas) in mainspace, turned Hydrox into a dab page and tried to sort out the "what links here". Have I missed anything? --RexxS (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not really, nice article, well done, some minor fixes, ==See also== contained external links, so we call that ==External links==, and external links is always at the bottom of the page, mostly because of the easy access to remove spam, as for "what links here, none of the other breathing gasses in the group had a link to hydrox, so i made the ==see also== section on all members in the group, if you want you can make a template with the same purpose, similar to Template:FuelCellGroup as on the bottom of Proton exchange membrane fuel cell, also a link was made on the main page Breathing gas, as i said, minor things, so i'm going to find my PADI card, and i'm off. Cheers Mion (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage, about linking so that your new article can be found. Mion (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I added an article stub for Arne Zetterstrom as he was referenced in the hydrox article. I used the information I could confirm from the this page. Do either of you know the copyright rules for Swedish Navy technical reports and photos? There is a photo of him on the front of one of their technical reports. Thanks --Gene Hobbs (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No understanding of the Swedish rules overhere, however playing on goodwill by sending an email to mailto:info@sdhf.se might help to find the copyright holder, see Image:CarCheryQQ.jpg, (and we use dual license now). Cheers Mion (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you - I think that Breathing gas would be the best place to make a link from, so I'll go and sort that. I'll start a search for Arne Zetterstrom's pic. If we can't find one, we can use a small image of copyrighted material under "fair use" or put a link to the report under "External links". I called it "see also" as that was the translation of the French section, but obviously omitted to update that! --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		for outstanding translation efforts on the on the Hydrox article. Gene Hobbs (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ox tox

Hi! replied to your note at my talk. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 13:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

NICE clean up today!!! Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I was happy to help. Nergaal (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I am impressed by your response. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		To RexxS, for action following criticism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Cascade storage system

Hi RexxS, could you rewrite the section on cascade storage system for diving ? once you're finished i'll ask the same on the firefighting portal. thanks. Mion (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just done a quick tidy on the page, but it's in need of a lot more work. I can't do much tomorrow, but I'll get back to it as soon as I can. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

there is no hurry, thanks. Mion (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Scuba set

Thanks for your comment. Regarding usage of colon vs. emdash, it's a matter of preference when used in lists. Lists are typically not prose, i.e., they usually don't use complete sentences, and thus the rules of sentence punctuation wouldn't apply. Either symbol works for me, although the emdash seems to stand out better than a colon on the screen and in print. (A table is sometimes even better than a list, but it takes more effort to construct and maintain.) The main thing I want in articles is consistency. I don't know about you, but when I'm reading something and the punctuation and style change randomly, I find it distracting and annoying.

When used in prose, however, the use of emdash and colon are more rigidly defined, as you pointed out. I learned in school that if one takes the part of the sentence before a colon, it can stand on its own as a complete sentence, and the part after the colon likewise. Moreover, the first letter of the first word after a colon must be capitalized, just as if one were writing a new sentence. (The first letter of the first word after a semicolon is not capitalized, however, unless it is a proper noun.) An emdash (or dash-dash on an old style typewriter) is used to indicate a pause or to inject another thought into a sentence. Parts of a sentence set off with one or two emdashes are most often not complete sentences by themselves. I find the rule about emdashes easy to to remember, because in Latvian, my mother's language, the character is literally called the "think symbol".

As far as using emdashes without spaces, the WP:MOS is flat-out wrong about that. (Imagine that!) Whoever wrote that probably never took a course in typing, or "keyboarding" as it is called today. Moreover, the emdash (and endash) need to be tied to the preceding text with a non-breaking space (HTML:  ), and followed by a regular space, in order to force a line break after the dash. Since most Web browsers only break lines at "white space" characters (space, tab), they won't break at a hyphen, endash or emdash, and when the window size on your screen varies, it can lead to rather strange line wrapping that looks ugly. This can be avoided by putting a space after the dash and a non-breaking space before the dash. This is standard typesetting practice. Unless a typesetter goofed, you'll never see a line starting with a hyphen, endash or emdash in commercial work. You can test this for yourself in the Wikipedia Sandbox by writing some long sentences with embedded emdashes, endashes and hyphens. Preview the text, then make your browser window wider or narrower to force the lines to wrap at different places. —Quicksilver^{T @} 00:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As I'm rather old now, my schooling in grammar - back in the 1950's - was very old-fashioned in comparison to modern views. So I pretty much agree with what you say, with one exception: the use of the colon when the second segment is not a complete sentence (rather like what I just wrote or when it's a list). I do agree that the first segment has to be a complete sentence grammatically, though. It's just that I find the use of any sort of dash to replace the colon in those cases to be a modernism <g> and would rather do without it. I'm sure MoS has that bit exactly right.

I must admit that when designing web pages (which I do much of the time professionally) I would use the "&nbsp;&mdash;&#20;" for precisely the reasons you state. The only problem I have here is that community consensus says "emdashes are not spaced" (which I disagree with) so I have to go along with that. Otherwise the encyclopedia will not have consistency. --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

redundancy exercises

Thank you so much for pointing this out. I use Safari on the Mac and nothing else. Someone else had a go at the colouring ages ago to fix up issues s/he saw, so the xxx tag is probably that person's doing.

I'd be most grateful if you fixed it, in which case I'll bookmark the diff and check that my analogous exercise formats (links at the top) are OK. Tony (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged, Rex. It looks perfect to me on a few spot-checks of show/hide. My, you are up late (01:45?). Tony (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, it was a bit later than that, here in the UK. I'm glad the page is ok for you - let me know if you get problems with any others. --RexxS (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Next?

Great job on the Oxygen toxicity article! Which one do we want to get to GA next? This is MUCH more fun working as a team. <g> --Gene Hobbs (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is - as I told Nergaal! I was thinking the same thing as I was driving back from work this evening. Choice is between getting OxTox to FA - or getting something like Nitrogen narcosis to GA. Or perhaps you'd prefer to get away from medicine and we could look at Diving regulator for light relief? --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

FA seems like a reasonable goal but I would be happier doing that after a few others are GA. I have to admit that I was thinking Nitrogen narcosis as well (with maybe a name change to "Inert gas narcosis" to broaden the topic). There are a few "new" researchers in diving medicine that are doing some cool new work on narcosis and they might be willing to assist (They are in the US and France). Peter B. Bennett is local for me so it is easy to pick his brain and library on this topic. (Decompression sickness could use some re-formatting and expansion to match WP:STYLE as well.) Do you have a copy of the The Physiology and Medicine of Diving and Compressed Air Work?--Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect that the GA process has become more rigorous over time and looking at the comparison, the main differences seem to focus on comprehensiveness, citations and prose style. I think the article is already quite comprehensive and the references are impeccable; but it needs a skilled copyeditor to go over it to improve the prose. As you say, we can leave that for later.
• If you're happy going for another diving-medicine article, either of those would do for me. However I wonder if "Narcosis (diving)" wouldn't be the most accurate title as I'm determined to explode the myth that oxygen has no narcotic effect. "Inert gas narcosis" is obviously better than "Nitrogen narcosis", but still doesn't give the whole picture for me (although technically oxygen's narcotic effect should be a physical effect, thus it is acting as a chemically inert gas in that role).
• I've also thought about DCS - my initial reaction is that it belongs in an article on DCI (along with arterial gas embolism), since the treatment, etc. is identical. But the experience with OxTox warns me off going for too big a subject <g>.
• In both cases, I now believe that they should comply with MOSMED - those section headings really organised my thinking and ultimately resulted in a much better article. Maybe we can make a user page to see how either of those would look?
• I envy you having access to someone as interesting as Peter Bennett. Or maybe not - if he were my neighbour, I'd probably be spending all my time debating with him on some scuba topic or other! As for the book, I don't have a copy, sadly. Along with another 1000 books I'd love to own, it seems I never make the time to find them (or have the cash to buy them <g>). But I can't fault your instinct for a good reference, so I'd better get hold of a copy fast. Best --RexxS (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Clarke1974.jpg

I made an svg version of Clark1974.jpg and uploaded it as Clark1974.svg - to see if I could make the text a little more readable (vector graphics are supposed to scale better). So this is what it looks like at 190px. Worse, if anything, and browsers don't rotate the arrow-heads in the same way as Inkscape does. Well, we'll know better for the future. --RexxS (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Excellent work - again!

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award this Barnstar for an exemplary job well done on the Nitrogen Narcosis article, only the most recent of much excellent work within the field of WP:SCUBA --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: StourportDivers

Just a quick note to say that I've replied to your post on my talk page. Cheers. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

blub blub

Hi Rexx, I hope you don't regret encouraging my insights into the SAA article. I kind of went to town. Fortunately it's easy to undo anything you don't like. Please read the revised article to make sure it's accurate and I didn't rephrase anything incorrectly. I included an extensive discussion of my changes on the article's discussion page, as well as some additional suggestions. I also think the introduction could be expanded to summarize what's in the article. Take it easy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the barnstar. I'm glad you were happy with the results. I think everyone brings a unique set of skills and expertise to the writing and editing process, so I'm always happy to collaborate. Often I haven't even realized what I've left out without someone asking a good question or bringing up an issue. So, I'm always happy to have someone edit and comment on what I've written, unless of course I disagree with what they say and do, and then they're complete idiots! :)

Unfortunately it's also often the case that reorganizations and rewrites are a bit like construction projects, and the process can be so ugly while it's going on that people revert before the work can be completed. Or the work causes new problems that need to be addressed, so the whole effort is thrown out. Anyway, that's an aside, but it was very generous of you to offer such kind praise for efforts many people seem to take as disruptive overreach. There's a lot of ownership, which is fine with me, there are enough articles for everyone to have some and I'd rather avoid areas where I'm not welcome.

Anyway, I took a quick look at the Oxygen toxicity article. It has a lot of great information in it, nice job. I made a few changes to the introduction and I put a couple comments in my edit summary (where they don't belong). The chart on the right is great, but it's too small to be readable. Can it be made full size between sections? Also, I wonder what the value is of including acronyms. I noticed even when you guys wrote out some of the terminology you still included the acronym. I would recommend just leaving them out all together, but I'm willing to consider an argument for their inclusion.

I'll do some more editing and commentary if you're up for it. But don't be afraid to keep me on a good leash. Take care and thanks again for your generosity and enthusiasm. It's nice to have fun with good people working toward a common goal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehe - thanks - it's appreciated. Let me do a quick critique of your edit. I don't know how familiar you are with WP:Lead and WP:MOSMED? I found out as we took the article to GA that there is a very real discipline involved in writing to the style required to meet these criteria - and it improved my writing no end. 'Lead' wants to make a very short description of the article (so they can release just the leads on DVD!) - so the fewer the paragraphs, the better; because people may search for alternate names for the article (in this case: 'Bert effect' and 'Smith effect' - and 'Hypoxia' actually redirects to the article), they want those as early as possible - so first sentence is best; the medics will tell you that 'Oxygen toxicity' is a "disease" or a "condition" - no need to mention terminology and the symptoms are a property of that condition; and the first sentence has to answer the two questions "what is it" & "why is it notable" - so should include the 'death' bit as that establishes why readers may be interested in it.

Ok, I know, I've torn it almost to bits :( But remember that's just my opinion and interpretation. I don't own the article, so you are just as entitled to interpret 'Lead' as I am! If you get the chance re-read WP:Lead and WP:MOSMED and see if you think each of your edits or the original works best. It's real hard work and MOSMED is a steep learning curve!

Now, the other ideas. The article pretty much has to have an image inside the info box and we tried several things to go there (look at Talk:Oxygen toxicity/GA3) before settling on that one. Just like you, I'm still not satisfied with it (although it looks good when you click it), but it's the best we've found so far to fit that space. OxTox is actually caused both by increased concentrations and by increased pressures - it's the partial pressure of the oxygen that determines the effect. I think that the condition is most important to three groups: divers, premature infants and patients receiving supplemental oxygen, so I'm content to have the summary of that in the next paragraph (it's effectively the epidemiology summary) - but again, you may be able to come up with a much better summary.

Finally, thanks once more for your enthusiasm - I have to say that working with others is easily the most satisfying part of editing Wikipedia, in my very humble opinion. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your feedback. I'm going to take another stab. Let's continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. I won't make any more changes until we discuss them on the article's talk page. I'm not sure what to do with the Bert bit and the other name yet beacuse I'm not clear what they are and what hyperoxia is. Are these all names for the same thing? I asked some related questions on the article's talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooops - apologies - I thought you'd accidentally unbolded the alternate names. Mea culpa - comments on article talk page. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have some questions for you. Answer at your leisure.

• 1) What is MOSMED?
• 2)How do you do text search via Wikipedia
• 3)Should we mention decompression sickness / the bends or will this just confuse things?

To be honest I think I was mixing these two subject up a bit so that might have been part of my misunderstanding about what oxygen toxicity is all about. For divers is it just related to the mixture in the tanks or does it involve the pressures at depth as well? I guess I need to read the article more carefully! I will do so.

Thanks for taking the time to explain things to me. I was confused about hyperoxia and got the impression it had its own article, but since it's included along with oxygen toxicity it definitely needs to be bold and I don't see any point in wikilinking it at all since it leads back to the same article. Sorry about that.

I'm feeling a little better about the direction I think I want to go with the article. I'll give it a try tomorrow. I know the intro needs to be longer, but I wanted to clean it up and make room first. Thanks for your feedback and corrections when I wander astray. It's been helpful to me and I hope it hasn't been too maddening to you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:MOSMED is the Manual of Style for articles that come under any of the Medical categories. All medical-related articles have to comply to reach Good Article (GA) or above (hehe - I only found out about it at the second GA Review!).
2. Try typing 'Paul Bert' into the search box in the left column of any page and click the 'Search' button (rather than pressing Enter or clicking the Go button). You'll get the search results - the article Paul Bert is first, and Oxygen toxicity is fourth. If you click the Go button instead, you go direct to the article if it exists, otherwise you get the search results as before. Try the same test searching for 'Paul Bert effect'.
3. There is an article on Decompression sickness - we plan to tackle that after we have finished getting Nitrogen narcosis to GA. No need to mention those in Oxygen toxicity - although all of them are summarised in Scuba diving#Effects_of_breathing_high_pressure_gas.

The partial pressure of oxygen is the trigger for OxTox: that is found by multiplying the fraction of oxygen by the ambient pressure at the depth you're at. For example, air is 21% oxygen and the pressure at 50 metres is 6 bar. So you have a partial pressure of oxygen (ppO₂) of 0.21 x 6 = 1.26 bar. That's safe from CNS OxTox as it's never been observed at less than 1.3 bar. Divers may use gas mixtures different from air, however - take a look at Nitrox for more information.

It's my pleasure to try to explain where I can. I must admit it was a little mischievous of me to throw you in at the deep end on Oxygen toxicity <grin>. But believe me, the discipline needed to meet all the style requirements is a great learning experience and worth the effort. By the way, hyperoxia is linked - but to its dictionary definition in Wiktionary like this: wikt:hyperoxia with a pipe (|) to give this: hyperoxia. Let me know if there's any of that you didn't understand. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, that's helpful. I like the photo of the oxygen toxicity experiment (three guys in a bulb) for the info box, or the Paul Bert photo. Would those be inappropriate or unusual? That other chart is very useful, but not when you can't read it (as we've discussed). ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There was some consensus to agree on the present image for the info box, so I wouldn't change it lightly. The image in the infox is the "top-left" image, i.e. the leading image for the article and as I understand it, should be symbolic or summarise the whole article - not easy in this case, which is why it was the third one we tried. One could argue that Paul Bert was the "founder" of investigation of the phenomena, so could be used as an icon of the subject in the info box; I wouldn't try to apply the same reasoning to the 1943 picture of testing inside a chamber - it really is only relevant to the History section. Have you had a chance to sort out in your mind what you think the lead should be yet? --RexxS (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If I can figure out how I'm going to stick Bert in there and see what happens... The diagram is too helpful to waste like that. Form follows function (or something like that). Sorry I haven't gotten around to fixing the intro up yet, I'm working up to it...  :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just edit the first section, changing the infobox parameters to be |Image = Paul Bert 01.jpg and |Caption = Paul Bert first described oxygen toxicity in 1878 - or whatever; the infobox does the sizing for you. I just tried it - it doesn't look bad. Then you just need to find the best place and size for the Clark image :) --RexxS (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think if we flip Bert anyone would know (style wise he's supposed to look into the article)? Anyway, I did it. Let the screaming commence. :) Thanks for the tips. It was cool to try, we'll see what happens. Okay, back to hacking up the intro...ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

All right, take a deep breath (get it, a deep breath??? ahahahahha!) and have a look. I know the intro needs some wikification and such, but I didn't deal with the details yet. I trust you'll check out the diffs to make sure none of my rewords are crazy inventions.

My random comments for this round are:

• 1)In the intro have I used supplemental oxygen right? Is this just used with premies or can astronauts and divers be said to be getting supplemental oxygen? I think it's okay. I'm just checking.
• 2)I cut some diving related info out of the CNS toxicty section (and moved it to the diving discussion). So the CNS paragraph is a bit short, but it looks okay to me. I thought there was somewhere else I wanted to grab some stuff from, but I couldn't figure out where, and I didn't want to mess anything up too badly (or more than I may already have).
• 3)A minor point, but I think the scleral buckle may be a little bit dated. But I could be wrong.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good start. (You knew I was going to say 'but' though.) But the lead seems oversimplified to me now. The real problem with this article is that OxTox isn't just one thing - there's an acute condition (CNS, seizures, etc.) which can only occur under hyperbaric conditions, but may happen quite quickly: this concerns divers and also patients undergoing HBOT. Then there's the chronic condition which affects the lungs and may damage (often irreversibly) the developing eye in premature infants. Each of them has different causes, developments, treatments and outcomes. And that's important - so needs to be summarised in the lead. For example, it's wrong to imply that the long term prognosis is good for stage IV ROP, so I'd suggest you look at the lead again from here and make a mental check-list of the detail that has since been removed. That's generally a good thing - shorter lead is a better lead. But the lead has to "summarize the most important points", so it needs to say, for example, that CNS OxTox can cause seizures (and under what conditions); that ROP can cause blindness; and indicate that avoiding BPD is a balancing act of sorts. If those sort of points don't come across clearly in the main article, then those sections need a re-write first. See what you think.

I have only ever seen "Supplemental oxygen" in the context of giving a patient extra oxygen; Astronauts during EVA will often breathe 100% O2, but at reduced pressure (avoiding Decompression sickness but increasing the risk of chronic OxTox). Divers using nitrox wouldn't be considered to be receiving supplemental O2 either.

The edit here has left an incomplete sentence at the start; it is also simply wrong to say premature babies are at risk of CNS toxicity. If anyone is administered 100% O2 at atmospheric pressure, they will be breathing O2 at a partial pressure of 1 bar and CNS Tox has never been observed below 1.3 bar. That means only those under greater than atmospheric pressure (hyperbaric) can suffer CNS tox. It will only happen among divers and those in a hyperbaric chamber, never with infants.

You moved a paragraph from "Causes" to "Prevention" here, but diving below 60m or too deep with nitrox are causes of CNS tox, not prevention. That paragraph is needed in "Causes" to say under what conditions divers are at risk (causes includes risks). "Prevention" is by observing a maximum operating depth and by cylinder marking - although the prevention section could do with being more explicit about that.

Cryo and laser surgery are familiar in developed countries, but much less so in other parts of the world. I would hazard a guess that the scleral buckle is likely to be around for some time still in less developed countries. The literature seems to show it's an effective technique and the article would be incomplete without a mention.

Anyway, it's a huge help to see from a fresh pair of eyes what isn't clear in the article. When you've done a round of editing, I'll go back into the sections and try to make clearer whatever needs it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said. My only point of difference would be on who should follow through on the needed corrections. I don't have the handle on these details that you do, so if you're willing to clean up my mess that would be awesome. :) A couple of the items you identified were actually concerns I had, but I was just doing the best I could with what I knew (not much in a lot of cases). If it's better to go back to the old version and work from there I'm okay with that too. But if you can make the corrections you've identified I like the clarity of the new version. I think the missing aspects and clarifications you've identified as needed are the types of things I was looking for, but didn't know enough to be able to identify and correctly articulate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A new section for a new round of edits?

Here's my suggestion for edits to the intro according to your suggestions. I would add:

• "there's an acute condition including CNS, seizures, etc. which can only occur under hyperbaric conditions, but may happen quite quickly. This is a concern for divers and also patients undergoing Hyprbaric Beubonic Orthology Treatment. There's also a chronic condition which affects the lungs and may damage (often irreversibly) the developing eye in premature infants. The two types of oxygen toxicity have different causes, developments, treatments and outcomes."
• Scleral buckle is okay with me as long as the laser surgery stuff is included too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Make sure to clarify that long term prognosis for stage IV ROP is not good.
• This gets a little tricky and the above improvement may already get us there, but: CNS OxTox can cause seizures (and under what conditions); that ROP can cause blindness; and indicate that avoiding BPD is a balancing act of sorts.
• Remove the supplemental oxygen and use appropriate terminology for people inhaling gas mixtures putting them at risk for these conditions.
• Premature babies are NOT at risk of CNS toxicity. And I think the point about 100% O2 at normal pressures is interesting and helpful.
• Restore causes section (I might leave some of what I moved to the prevention section, but you can use or move as necessary what's needed to restore the causal info).

Those are my suggestions, well yours actually, but I am reiterating them with my full support. :) Any feedback from anyone or thoughts on the photo and diagram switcheroo? The diagram could actually be clearer, what are the three starting points of the arrows? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection I can probably do some of the fixes. So I'll see if I can get to some of the clean up, if you don't get there first, when I'm fresher. It's probably not very generous to make a big mess and ask someone else to clean it up. Thanks again for your encouragement and support. If it all gets reverted I'm not worried about it, as it's been an interesting and valuable effort. Of course I'm hoping it will result in a strong article that meets the applicable style guides and communicates information effectively and clearly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rexx!!! I hope I haven't chased you off. Happy holidays my man. And happy new year too, it's not far off... Sorry you missed out on the whole Turkey and pigskin routine. Or did you? Take care. Breathe deeply...ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehe - I always thought that we Brits should be the ones to celebrate Thanksgiving (getting rid of all those troublesome religious separatists in 1620). We get our turkey and bits of dead pig on Christmas day, so I have that to look forward to. I saw your edit last night and I approve :) I must admit I've been spending too much time on work and my wiki-time has been taken up mainly with reading Brubakk, Alf O. (2003). Bennett and Elliott's physiology and medicine of diving, 5th Rev ed. Edinburgh; New York: Saunders, 800 pages. ISBN 0702025712. OCLC 51607923. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), trying to chase references for Nitrogen narcosis as User:Gene Hobbs (our ace referencer) seems to have taken Thanksgiving too seriously as well <grin>. --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for locating the policy on sourcing. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thank you for the permission to fix Bill Nagle.  :) I've been busy with Seven-layer salad, Bill Scott (Author), Regina Folk Festival and Burnt Hair Records. I'm becoming an expert on Detroit Michigan's space rock music scene in the 90s. Plus I seem to get mixed up on the diving stuff (as you know), and I might make Nagle into an astronaut by the end of my editing... Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: reverts

heh. yeah. that one was a mistake. But, you are right and I am sorry for doing that. I will be more careful in the future. Thingg^⊕⊗ 22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Support on MOSNUM

Hi. Thanks for your words of support for Proposal 11. If you can spare a moment, can you add that at “Support/Oppose for this proposal” here? Greg L (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done with pleasure. More comments to follow... --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy one year!

You've been here a year already? I just saw your name pop up somewhere on my watchlist (I watch User talk:MastCell, mostly for the humor, you should read the archives sometime :-), and realize it was a year ago that you were starting out - good to see you still around and enjoying the place! Cheers, and happy new year - Keeper | 76 02:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR clarification

While normal month/day dates should be removed to prevent autoformatting it is still possible to create links to these pages that don't invoke autoformatting, eg [[March%201|March 1]] should give you March 1 (March 1) if I linked right). Thus, it's still possible to link to month/day pages without date autoformatting, the question is of when it should be done. hope that helps --MASEM 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Delinking

I thank you, and I try to avoid rancor.

But do read WP:Consensus, WP:OWN, and WP:PRO with more care and attention. They are not intended to ratify bulling things through by majority vote; indeed, we have policy against that. We are intended to proceed by discussion and agreement until the greatest number possible have signed on, and all consensuses are temporary (with a handful of exceptions, none of them involved here). We deviate from this, by necessity, in shouting down lone cranks against overwhelming consensus, but Locke Cole is not a lone crank; the polls give him more support than I recalled, even on the questions of autoformatting (not really at issue here).

Above all, it is perfectly common, and the case here, for there to be no consensus on an issue; for article names, and so forth, we must do something by default; but here we can do what no consensus should lead to: leaving things alone, and proceeding slowly, until a new idea emerges. Except in the view of an inconsiderable handful, date linking is not so critical that we must do something about right now; any time before publication will do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I really think we're not too far apart, and there's nothing above that I'd want to disagree with (with the possible exception of how much consensus there is for the present wording of WP:MOSLINK). I certainly don't think Locke is a lone crank (or any other sort of crank); I respect his opinion. He happens to think there is value for date links beyond what WP:MOSLINK prescribes. He may well be right. As I've said before, there's a kind of joy in browsing a paper encyclopedia and spotting something adjacent alphabetically, unrelated to what you were looking for, but nevertheless interesting (as Peter Cooke's E.L.Whisty noted when confusing Mosque with Mosquito). Locke may have a point in that unrelated items could be browsed by date-adjacency in wikipedia. At some point - not now - it would be interesting to debate that case. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your latest comments to Locke strongly suggest that you have not actually read the long passage you cite, but just counted names. All the comments may have had some relevance to autoformatting, but several of the editors you count expressed no clear opinion of what is now being called our consensus against auroformatting. About a dozen editors did in fact participate in the straw poll; some of the other comments expressed discernable opinions on the issue; still others went off on tangents.

There may well be a consensus now against it; but if so, the evidence for it is the RfCs, not in August. Mocking Locke Cole just makes you sound like the frivolous and bad faith parties to the case. Please desist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to express your thoughts to me. I can assure you I have read all that discussion more than once. You are absolutely correct to say that many different opinions were expressed in that debate, including alternate proposals. But the point is that Locke gave me the impression he did not read what I had stated initially, "...some two dozen users took part in the debate on the talk page", in immediate response to Kendrick's sarcastic use of "wide ranging" in "..some wide ranging discussion, while, oops, suddenly no one can remember where this very recent discussion occurred." I put very little store in straw polls; for me the arguments advanced in a debate are far more telling, so you can imagine my exasperation when Locke attempted to dispute the fact that over two dozen users contributed to the debate. I hope you can see that when considering the breadth of participation (the point in question), it is disingenuous not count some contributions because they were less relevant than others. Yes, that is what has to be done when judging the outcome, but not the level of participation.

I admire Locke's willingness to engage in reasoned debate normally, and was rather thrown by his response to me, as it seemed he had missed the point I was making, something he does not usually do. Nevertheless, I am willing to be guided by your view as a third-party and I am sufficiently disturbed by your characterising my response as "mocking": I'll drop Locke a line and offer an apology for my intemperance. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your note, and apologize in kind if you took offense to the remarks I made at the ArbCom case. I'd read what you'd written but perhaps the tone of my response wasn't quite right. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You have no need to apologise, but thank you for the gesture - I do appreciate it. I do my best never to take offence, and you caused none to me. I think (as Kendrick7 pointed out) that I was frustrated by the fact we seemed to be talking at cross-purposes. Hopefully, we can re-engage and work towards producing an outcome to the RfArb that is beneficial to the project. --RexxS (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

No problem. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions

Thanks for your suggestions regarding how to format my ArbCom submission. Also, your wording was better than mine! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)