User talk:DiverDave/Archive 1

Ticket of leave
Hi Diverdave. For future info, when doing a copy-paste job as you did from Ticket of leave to Ticket of Leave (Australian convicts) is not only courteous to the original writer of the article, but also a requirement of the GFDL that the original authorship of the article be attributed correctly. Else, most casual readers would accept you were the author of the new article. And when combined with a page move, even moreso. This could be simply done via the edit summary eg. "text copied from Ticket of leave to enable disambiguation", or a note in the talk page. See WP:SPLIT. –Moondyne 11:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also note that you changed the links in the articles to Ticket of Leave (Australian convicts) but haven't piped the link. You should have changed it to ticket of leave .  These all need to be fixed. –Moondyne 11:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Moondyne, and thank you for your recent comments. I sincerely apologize for my recent error. I joined Wikipedia a year ago, but I am still learning my way around, and obviously have a long way to go. Please allow me to explain what I think happened.

I came across the Ticket of Leave page last night, and someone had previously posted a suggestion for the page to be disambiguated (it contained 2 different subjects on the same page). I saw this as an opportunity for me to help the project, and also to gain some valuable experience in doing what is probably a routine task.

This is the first time I have attempted such a task, and needless to say, I screwed it up beyond belief. When I tried to revert my changes, I got a message that they could not be undone! So I was at the keyboard until 0530 this AM, manually fixing every link I could find.

With respect to "piping the links": this is a new concept for me, but I can and will pipe all the links in the exact manner you have suggested. Are you sure this is the best way to handle this change? The only reason I ask, is that I do not want to have to go back and do a third round of changes after I have completed that task. I would like to get this valuable lesson behind me and move on ASAP.

Once I have completed fixing all the links I can find, I will attempt to fix the attribution of the authorship of the 2 Ticket of Leave pages. I suppose I will have to do this by placing a note on the each of the two "Talk" pages. It is not and was never my intent to claim credit for authorship of either of the new pages; this really was just an honest error. As far as I can tell, the Ticket of Leave page was created by Hesperian at 03:47 on 08 December 2004. Am I correct? I am sure you understand that right now, my greatest fear is compounding my previous errors even more.

I humbly ask for your help with this task, and a little friendly mentoring would be tremendously appreciated. It is my sincere intent to be an upstanding member of the Wikipedia community. Some day I hope to be in a position to help other Wikipedians extract themselves from this kind of mess. DiverDave (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Another message from DiverDave
Hello again Moondyne. I have just finished correcting all the links I could find. I have also written a note on the "Talk" pages for the newly disambiguated "Ticket of leave" pages. This has been a misadventure which I do not care to repeat. Thanks again for your help. I have included below the text of the apology I wrote on Hesperian's Talkpage:

Hello Hesperian. I made an error yesterday, while attempting to disambiguate a page that I believe you created. The new page ticket of leave has been erroneously credited to me as the author instead of you. Moondyne alerted me to my mistake, and I have done everything in my present capacity to make it right. At his suggestion, I have added a note on the "Talk" page, indicating that you are the actual author of that page. Please let me know if there is anything else I can or should do to repair my transgression. It was never my intention to falsely claim credit; this was simply an honest mistake by an inexperienced but otherwise honorable Wikipedian. Thanks for your help, and also for your understanding. DiverDave (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope my efforts have been sufficient to correct my transgression, and demonstrate that I have honorable intentions. Thanks again, DiverDave (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for sorting that out, and please don't worry about it — like they say, almost anything be fixed and everything looks fine now. I'm sorry I wasn't around to help, and it had been my intention that this would be this morning's project, but it looks like our time difference and my dallying meant you and H. got the jump on me. Regards, –Moondyne 00:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine
Hi, Dave.

''If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal. If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (signup here).''

We are a friendly bunch. We would be delighted if you join us and collaborate. Best wishes. Axl ¤  [Talk]  08:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipages in Need
Pleaseplease help me I need you to help me so YW! Someone, please help me, I post as lets moo I gess or lets moo i gess 7 on this Website please help me. -- Rayqayza Dialga Weird 2210   13:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is strictly buisness (mostly) so I am sending you this message for Wikipages in need.

Plain White T's, Edward Wong, David Turnbull, Columbia Revolt, Year of the Lash  and Jheri Curls Have improved, but still needs a lot of help. -- Rayqayza Dialga Weird 2210   16:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

PHASE 2 Thomas Latimer   Matt Bai are better articles now, because of wikipedians like you who have improved articles. -Stubs-

David Garrow

Nell Irvin Painter

Hans Raastad-- an article I created

Pea enation mosaic virus The Grays (band) Gingivectomy Michael Curtis Tom Karsch This stub is getting better, but needs more work. Professor Mike Donovan -- Rayqayza Dialga Weird 2210   16:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Spread the word!-- Rayqayza Dialga Weird 2210   14:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And also, if you know anything about the X files and are interested in a WikiProject pertaining to this, see WikiProject The X-Files -- Rayqayza Dialga Weird 2210   15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WA
There is very little info in this page at the moment. I think without expansion this could end up being a little image heavy. What sort of photo do you have in mind? Polargeo (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello DiverDave I've left a comment on Talk:West_Antarctica Polargeo (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Polargeo. Sorry, but the photo request was just a template that I added unintentionally. I will remove it, because the image already included on the page is actually sufficient. A map with geographic features identified would be a nice addition, however.DiverDave (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Consistancy
I understand the drive for consistancy but now the List of Glaciers is inconsistent with all other lists of glaciers. See List_of_glaciers. If you change one you should change all of them and also all of the links to the new redirects that are left behind should be changed. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Glaciers_of_Antarctica. Otherwise it is best to leave the articles where they were. Polargeo (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I blanked some of my comment because I realised that there is a mixture left still. I can see this is a work in progress. Polargeo (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Ritscher
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Alfred Ritscher, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:New_Swabia. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:LogoNeu.jpg and the spread of logos
DiverDave, I noticed that recently you added File:LogoNeu.jpg to a large number of articles. I removed all these uses but one, for the New Swabia expedition section of New Swabia. We don't cast fair use logos all over the project like that. The articles reference the expedition, and if a person needs to see the logo they can see it at the expedition section. Further, all instances I removed were lacking in fair use rationale for each use, which is required by WP:NFCC #10c. Please do not re-instate this image on all of these pages. If you have questions, you can ask at WT:NFC. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up, Hammersoft. I am still a newbie, so I will take you at your word that you have removed the images from these articles for the correct reasons. I thought I was improving the stubs by adding useful and legitimate information. I was under the impression that any image on any Wikipedia page could be used on any other page (i.e., that all images are "fair use"). I suppose it is more complicated than that. If I wanted to re-instate that image legitimately on one or more articles, what would be the correct way of accomplishing this?DiverDave (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a newbie isn't a crime :) Any _free license_ image can be used without restrictions in policy. Non-free imagery, such as this logo, are restricted by policy. "Fair use" is a concept in American law permitting the use in narrowly defined ways of copyrighted images without the permission of the copyright holder. I often wish it wasn't called "fair use" because it casts the wrong impression. This particular image isn't suitable for any of the articles on which you put it. It is suitable for the article it is currently on. With non-free imagery, we restrict uses as much as possible, and only use them where really necessary. Hope this helps? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lists
I'm not really up to date with this but I was just looking for some naming convention and found this Lists_(stand-alone_lists). I wonder why it is necessary to change the name of all lists that start 'List of...'? Is this an out of date convention? Polargeo (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Polargeo. I was hoping to achieve a consistency in nomenclature for the List-class pages within the Antarctica Wikiproject. I had no idea there was such a thing as a pre-existing convention for naming pages. So apparently there is no reason for the name changes that I initiated. I am happy to revert them if you wish, or you can take the liberty of doing so yourself. Regards,DiverDave (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not really too fussed. I suppose having List of... at the start of the title really shows that it is a list and not an article. One could feasibly have an article on Ice streams of Antarctica or Antarctic ice streams which would be different from List of ice streams of/in Antarctica If you want to change them back then that is fine with me. Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Prison ships
Hi DiverDave, I have undone your change of "Third Rate" to "third rate" and the like. We describe someone as being third rate. However, "Third Rate" was a title and contemporary usage. Thus a 74-gun ship was not third rate, she was a "Third Rate". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Acad Ronin, and thank you for bringing this to my attention. I should have checked the links I created for third rate versus Third-rate, etc. However, the main purpose of my edit was to wikify the information a little better. Your reversion corrected my mistakes, but also undid the wikification. Give me a few minutes, and I will re-wikify the table while preserving the corrections you made. Please do not consider this to be a hostile act; on the contrary, I appreciate your input very much!. Cheers, DiverDave (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi DiverDave, My bad. Haste makes waste. I am on a long-run crusade/jihad (equal time) to correct third rate/Third Rate usage, cleaning it up whenever I come across it, that and the passive voice. Again, apologies, and thanks for the wikification. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WP Volcanoes
Hello. If you haven't noticed, I've started a structural reorganization of WikiProject Volcanoes. So far, I've beutified the head page and moved a lot of the stuff to subpages of the project, so as not to bulk the main page. As an active member of the project, this is just a notice about what's going on. Comments go on the talk page. Happy holidays, Res Mar 14:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of heaviest bells
Hello! Your submission of List of heaviest bells at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! - EdoDodo  talk 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

meetup!
It was great to meet you at the meetup yesterday. I hope y'all can have another Dallas meetup soon! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Human_trafficking_in_the_Philippines
I hope things have settled some at this article, was not delighted to see the IP check thing waved but suggest you let that go and continue to make your constructive grammar/style edits there, respectfully, RomaC (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help, RomaC. I don't know or care anything about IP checks; I have nothing to hide. Honestly, I remain a little bewildered by the recent breach of civility and personal attack on me by Susanbryce.

When I blundered onto this article a fews days ago and made my first edits, I approached it as I have done with the hundreds of other articles I have edited in the year or so since I became a Wikipedian. Specifically, I tried to be bold, while acting in good faith.

As I mentioned in my earlier comments, the article in question seems to be very poorly written from a grammatical standpoint. Additionally, many of the sources it cites are redundant, of questionable reliability, and/or appear to present a distorted point of view of a serious and complex social problem. While some of my edits may in retrospect have been somewhat controversial, any word substitutions I made were merely an attempt to neutralize the tone of the article, and not at all an attempt to advocate a "pro-pedophile" position.

Surprised to see my edits reverted, I examined the history of the article and also of the author to try to gain some insight into the situation. It was only then that I learned that both have been the subject of a fair amount of often vitriolic debate.

At that time, I introduced myself on her User talk page, and politely suggested that she and I should work together on this article as partners. Her response was to blank her usertalk page, re-revert my edits, and immediately launch a vicious accusation at me. It is clear that she did not take the time to examine my own userpage prior to launching her attack.

I understand why Susanbryce holds certain political and social views, and I sympathize with her and her cause. However, the Wikipedia project is not about causes; it is an encyclopedia. In the 3 years or so she has been a Wikipedian, she has been involved in several edit wars, at least one arbitration, and has received several warnings from various administrators for various infractions. Wikipedia policies she appears to have previously violated include: Assume good faith, Civility, Don't be a fanatic, Edit warring, Neutral point of view, No personal attacks, blatant advertising, Tendentious editing, Three-revert rule, Verifiability. This is not an attack on Susanbryce---on the contrary, I hope she will read this note and click on each of the links to the aforementioned Wikipedia policies and try to educate herself on how to become a better citizen of this project.

I have not decided whether to continue working on this article or to simply walk away. With more than 3 million articles in the project, I am certain there are many that are more worthy of my efforts than this one. I understand there is no real mechanism in place to compel us to be good citizens, but nevertheless I sincerely appreciate your intervention in this childish dispute. :-) DiverDave (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Narada
Just wanted to let you know that Narada in Hindu mythology, and Nārada Buddha in Buddhist tradition are distinct and (AFAIK) unrelated figures, and therefore I have undone your recent move of the Narada article. Abecedare (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Abecedare. I should have checked more carefully before assuming the Hindu sage Narada was one and the same with the Buddha Narada. There is a fair amount of overlap between the two religions, especially as we get closer to the origins of Buddhism in and around India. I intend to scrutinize the rest of the early Buddhas on the list to see if I have made this error elsewhere. I have removed the link to List of the twenty-eight Buddhas on the Narada page, as it obviously does not apply. Again, thanks for your attention to detail! DiverDave (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can certainly understand the confusion (I myself had not heard of Narada Buddha before) and am curious if the two were ever linked - haven't found anything on that yet. If you are knowledgeable about the subject, perhaps you can create an entry on Nārada Buddha, and the recent confusion can help fill a hole in wikipedia's coverage. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruth Elkins
Just a friendly note on Ruth Elkins. I declined your speedy deletion request, because there's a good faith claim of importance. While I agree that the article does not establish notability, to avoid a speedy you only need to claim importance, which is a lower standard. If you still think the article should be deleted, prod or AfD would be the way to go. Cheers!
 * Also declined on Roy Elkins, but I prodded that myself.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, Fabrictramp. I always appreciate it when an editor more experienced than myself steps in to ensure that Wikipedia guidelines are adhered to "by the book". This represents a modicum of protection for all of us. I have just reviewed the guidelines for AfD and Prod. I see the new templates you substituted on those two articles, and they appear to be more appropriate than the ones I placed. Does this mean that they are still at risk for deletion, only now based on slightly different criteria? I always try to assume good faith, but the Roy Elkins and Ruth Elkins articles just struck me as being little more than vanity articles. DiverDave (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roy will be deleted in 7 days unless someone objects (and if they object without adding enough solid sources to show notability, I'll take it to AfD myself). CSD is a very narrow set of criteria (A7, for example, is designed for articles like "Joe is a boy in my school and he's cool"), where as prod and AfD can cover any article that doesn't meet the inclusion criteria.


 * The template on Ruth's page just points out the notability issue, but won't lead to deletion by itself. I'll take a look for sources in a minute and either add some quality refs or prod it. HTH.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I found a few iffy German sources -- enough to make me think deletion might be controversial. That rules out prod, so I took it to AfD. The discussion is at Articles for deletion/Ruth Elkins. Cheers! -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Northern Sierra Madre Forest Monitor Lizard
Hi DiverDave. I have changed the article to a redirect to the more referenced and expanded/descriptive article Varanus bitatawa (given that the two are one and the same). I'm not sure whether that article should be proposed to be moved to your original title however... Some animals are listed by species name: needless to say, scientists don't seem to have given this animal a catchy colloquial name yet! Revert me if you think I was out of place to change the article to a redirect. Cheers! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) Join WikiProject Athletics!  15:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Serpula
Hello! Your submission of Serpula at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Hello! Your submission of Serpula at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
 * Nice article! Truly sorry to be pedantic on this, but all the words in the hook really do need to be supported by an obvious inline citation. It might be easier just to shorten the hook to focus on the bits that are already cited fully. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, DiverDave -- I've added a couple of citations to Fox to the lead of the article to make it crystal clear that the hook is supported, and I think it's good to go now. I hope that you get the pictured slot! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

MD
You mentioned that you are a physician in the septic abortion AFD. In Wikipedia, there is an intense hatred of experts and expert credentials, yet you mention it. According to Wikipedia rules, your being a physician means nothing. According to Wikipedia culture, your being a physician means that you are to be hated and not trusted. According to scholarly, peer reviewed academic journals, your being a physician means that your professional opinion is vital.

I am not so sure that Wikipedia culture is correct or helpful. If Wikipedia is not to be a fraud and trying to convince people that it is a good sources (much like N.D.-naturalpathic doctors, D.C.-chiropractors, and O.D.-optometrists keep on trying to convince others that they are physicians and are the best), then Wikipedia culture should be changed. However, if Wikipedia is to remain a hobbyist and fun website, then the current culture is ok.

I see that disclaimers are violently opposed in Wikipedia. Yet people reading it will unlikely click the small general disclaimer at the bottom and think that Wikipedia is up to the same standards as e-medicine, Merck Manual, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, or Sabiston's Textbook of Surgery. This is deceptive and not true. (On the other hand, Wikipedia is more fun). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your comments, Suomi Finland 2009; you raise some very interesting points. First, I was not aware that Wikipedians despise or mistrust professionals. I have always placed great value on the opinions of people who are experts in their respective fields. However, nobody should trust or accept any expert's opinions blindly. Perhaps I should not have mentioned the fact that I am a physician, but I thought it might help the discussion by forcing people to consider their opinions carefully before posting them---in other words, to elevate the level of the discussion a bit. You correctly point out that Wikipedia is not an academic journal. But I would argue that it is indeed a peer-reviewed body of work. Wikipedia eventually gets most of the facts right, most of the time, because of people like you and me. The article in question, septic abortion, is currently in pretty bad shape, and for many reasons I am reluctant to defend it. Honestly, I was a little disappointed to learn that the author is a medical student. But in all fairness, you and I do not know the full story. My guess is that the author intends to rewrite the article and include reliable sources but just has not yet had the time to do this. Like you, I find Wikipedia to be a very interesting website. But for the most part, I do not think of Wikipedia as fun---I actually take it quite seriously. Many Wikipedians, like me, take pride in making incremental improvements in the quality, depth and breadth of Wikipedia articles. I have always believed that the collective intelligence of a population is greater than that of any of its members. DiverDave (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with building up Wikipedia's repetoire of medical articles is that it will misinform the public since Wikipedia's medical articles will rise so far higher in search engines that truly reputable medical information. For this reason, Wikipedia is a danger to patient safety. In contrast, articles on celebrities and countries are not a danger.

See how resistance to a simple disclaimer is violently opposed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/April_2005#Template:Medical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_templates/Other/2007/January#Proposed_Medical_Disclaimer_Template

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=102020540

What are people so afraid of? Wikipedia is fun but we shouldn't be dishonest and try to make us look more scholarly than we are. If we do, we are just like N.D. people trying to say they are just as good as M.D. or MBBS physicians.

This is the trouble with students. In some school systems, the teachers try to build up self esteem. ...you are great. Self esteem is good but feeling smart and powerful is not the same as being smart. American movies, in particular, have a bad habit of the main character nearly always winning. Captain Kirk of Star Trek always wins. That creates high self esteem but unrealistic perceptions. In reality, good people sometimes lose. Sometimes, the superhero is overwhelmed by the enemy and loses. Wikipedia is fun but hardly a good medical tool. If my doctor used Wikipedia, I would be frightened. If he used e-medicine, I would not be bothered. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your thoughtful comments, Suomi Finland 2009. I neither oppose nor support legal disclaimers. It is regrettable that we live in a world where legal disclaimers are sometimes necessary, and that I live in a country where they are often necessary. With respect to the types of people who make legal disclaimers a necessary evil: I will keep those opinions to myself for now. That said, disclaimers can sometimes be effective legal tools that might prove useful in defending the Wikipedia project in the event that a lawsuit were to be filed against the project. This topic is really quite far outside my own scope of expertise, so that is all I will say at this time about disclaimers.


 * I agree with you that we shouldn't try to appear more scholarly than we are. Rather, I suggest we should try to BE more scholarly than we currently are. The gold standard of encyclopedias used to be such works as Lexicon Technicum, Cyclopaedia, Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, and Encyclopædia Britannica. The internet is changing all of this, and Wikipedia is a big part of this movement. The project will be finished only when we have learned everything there is to know about everything in this and all other universes. But we have to start somewhere....


 * If my doctor used any one source as his/her only reference, I would be concerned. Any true scholar will consult multiple reliable sources and cross-check his/her research, whatever the subject matter. There is an article relating to miscarriage on Medline Plus, at Medical Encyclopedia: Miscarriage (United States Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, United States National Library of Medicine). While that article is peer-reviewed, it is easy to see its limitations. BTW, check out the legal disclaimer at the bottom of that article. IMHO, no topics should not be excluded from Wikipedia simply because these are felt to be the domain of scholars or experts. Many articles are initially incomplete and/or sloppily written. But over time, many of these are eventually transformed into thorough, accurate articles complete with reliable references. DiverDave (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Scuba
A very warm welcome to WikiProject SCUBA, Dave. I'm afraid it's not the most active project on the wiki, but there's a number of us who are trying to improve the coverage of scuba as much as we can, and you're more than welcome to pitch in anywhere you want and to ask for any help we can give. For what it's worth, I'm also interested in diving medicine (although I'm not a doctor), and keep the Doctors' Mess on my watchlist - I see that Axl has already extended you a welcome there. Anyway, if you ever want another pair of eyes on an article, need help, or just want to share something interesting, drop me a line or post on WT:WikiProject SCUBA. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)