User talk:Kevin Kidd

Hello. Excellent work on the Dune (Discrepancies) page! RJCraig 02:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks RJ, after the fact I was concerned I did too much... Cheers, Kevin Kidd aka --Arkayik 02:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations of Bad/Honest Dune Reviews
Kevin, one of the things that has disturbed me most about this mess over the last few years is the dearth of honest reviews out there; it's almost enough to make you believe in some sort of conspiracy between the publishers and reviewers. You see plenty of complaints in various readers forums online, but I have yet to see anyone in print name these things for the stinkers they are. Here are two links from the Inchoatus site that you might find interesting.

http://www.inchoatus.com/Reviews/Dune--House%20Atreides%20Review.htm

http://www.inchoatus.com/Reviews/Dune--House%20Harkonnen%20Review.htm

RJCraig 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel your pain. Even in the review I quoted in the discrepancies section, it wasn't until the end of the essay that you get the spike about the poor writing... So, then how does one cite the problems in an accurate and NPOV way, when it's difficult to find the straight goods? I can't believe the number of reviews on the web in which the reviewer admits to not fully reading Dune....

Anyhow, thank you for the links, they were informative and extremely amusing. --Arkayik 03:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Scuba Diving
Hi Kevin, I noticed your recent edits on Scuba diving breathing. It seems to me that the current version barely explains the common standard 2-stage approach yet gives a lot more verbiage to the rare essentially extinct 1-stage. I have no issue with describing the rare old stuff but think it makes sense to first address what's really out there. There is also way too much minute tech detail in the current version on how to evaluate and compare reg performance vs. how it really works (this is supposed to be an intro for the uninitiated). I could change it myself but since you did the last edits I thought maybe you would prefer to give it a go first. Thanks, Crum375 11:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense Crum, I'll have a look at it this evening and see if I can massage it a bit more... --Arkayik 21:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, what you added is great and very detailed. The problem I now see is this: The overall current structure of the Scuba diving article is that it is a top level description of the activity, then there is Scuba set that describes the equipment at the top level, then there are individual articles for each piece of equipment, such as diving regulator for regs, etc. It seems the way you have it now there way too much detail for regs at the top of this 3-layer pyramid. I suggest you look at the 3 layers again and decide whether perhaps some of your new info can be merged into the lower tiers. If I can be of any help let me know - but I hate to just chop down what you did because it does look good in itself, although not necessarily in the right article. Sorry to be a perfectionist but I want it to look right :P Thanks Crum375 12:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Crum, no point in doing it unless it is done right. Have a look now and see if it is still too long. Cheers, --Arkayik 14:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Being a perfectionist I am still unhappy - I may just try my own version soon, for you to comment. Crum375 20:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

OK - I have a test version in my sandbox - would you mind taking a look and commenting? Thanks, Crum375 21:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I've done a bit of editing. Feel free to go live with it once you're satisfied. Cheers,

--Arkayik 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Check it out in the main space and feel free to improve. Thanks for the help. Crum375 15:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)