User talk:RexxS/Archive 4

Re: Dive
Actually its not automated :) All mistakes are mine. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 01:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, mea culpa! I can only offer my lack of knowledge about WikiCleaner as defence, as I tend to just use popups for dab. I've tidied up all the ones on my watchlist (which should be all the scuba), so no harm done, and thanks for the giggle. --RexxS (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mount Batten at Plymouth Sound
Diving cylinders.jpg was taken at the dive shop (Deep Blue?) at Mount Batten marina. Mark.murphy (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes! Of course - I knew it was somehow familiar, but couldn't put my finger on it. I haven't been there for years, and it was bugging me that I ought to know. Thanks very much. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


Ret.Prof (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

And to you too, Prof! (belatedly) --RexxS (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Colitis X article
Rexx, please feel free to help out if you see some needs to fix the Colitis-X article, or if you prefer, let me know at the talk pages the direction some changes could go. I did some tweaking on it last night to attempt to address what seemed to be some legitimate concerns raised by various editors. As Lar said, it's a long history with that one other editor and to those who don't know the background, I probably seemed a bit over-emotional. As for the article, I probably oversimplfied things in an attempt to render them from peer-reviewed journalese and jargon into understandable English (one source was a non-native-English speaker to boot, which really made that article a challenge to figure out. "dire" treatment? "exacerbated" metabolism?  Lordy!). So any constructive suggestions, particularly by folks who actually looked at the source material and have ideas for better ways to phrase things, would be welcome! Montanabw (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the invitation. I do think from reading the sources you've used that the article probably overstates some of the evidence. I'll first of all do a trawl through PubMed and see what I can find – a good, recent overview would be ideal, as secondary sources are much better for our purposes, then I'll come back and discuss what I think at the talk page. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good luck! It's a frustrating condition, as the blogs out there suggest that the term itself is falling out of favor as somewhat archaic, yet isn't getting replaced with anything more specific, and there are a lot of older horse bios that state it as a cause of death for assorted horses, especially race horses.  Also a problem is that the term is both the catchall for colitis fatalities of unspecified origin AND refers to the particular forms of colitis that seem to be linked to some version of that one bacterium. And there just isn't a whole heckuva lot of research, anything else you can find will be VERY helpful, the problem also being that all I could get at were abstracts...The heavy metal poisoning issue is one example -- in some cases it probably could be confused with colitis, but on the other hand, there is probably some case where it triggered colitis and thus got listed as a cause (phooey)  I suppose as far as overstating the evidence, there is room to figure out how to weasel it down without inviting tags for that, too.   Oh, and then if you get on a roll, we have a whole bunch of other horse disease articles in need of massive help!  LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the RFC/U
You forgot to sign to certify the discussion, as the filing user you should be the first to certify, so feel free to move mine down to the second line. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (facepalm) Thanks for pointing out my daftness! I've fixed that now (hopefully), although LessHeard vanU's comment may make the whole RfC/U unnecessary, with any luck. --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From past experience, I am unsure resolving it will be so simple. Additionally, the "victim" has stated they are unlikely to edit Wikipedia further in the future, thus the damage has been done... Anyway, the RfC/U is now fully listed, and will appear on the relevant discussion templates at ANI and other places. --Taelus (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MOS tweaks
Thanks for your tweaks to ketogenic diet. I wouldn't have spotted the alt-text issue but it is a good one. Colin°Talk 22:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome. In the case of the non-breaking space, it's not a big deal, as screen readers should cope with it (but there's no guarantee that all will). I'm keeping the page on my watch-list for a couple of days, as requested. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a pleasure to make your acquaintance in the last few days. See you around Wiki... Colin°Talk 20:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Academic achievement among different groups in Germany
Hi :) You had shown some interest in the article so I thought you might want to know that I am done with translating. I also wanted to ask you, if you would like to proofread, but of course you don't have to. Regards.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Copyedit done – replied on your talkpage. --RexxS (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dorothy_Kilgallen
Hello, the links that you identified as unsuitable as external links have now been incorporated as references within the article.  -MM 207.69.139.142 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it looks as though there's disagreement about them being reliable sources as well. I've just removed an external link to the opinion piece by Eric Paddon. Frankly, I'd recommend looking for better sources and expanding the text with them. --RexxS (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Plane Crash
I enjoyed you last remark. He is now an Admin and we all hope you are right! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Prof, I hope so too. Although after the battering he's taken, I suspect he'll be ultra-non-controversial in future :) --RexxS (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dive tables
Hello, RexxS. I apologize for the delay in my response. I have been ill. Anyway, there may be advice on closing a move discussion on the Requested moves page. If there is, that is the advice I suggest you follow. If there is no pertinent advice, I think that a week after the discussion is started is the standard time to close it. Had I realized that a move discussion had been started, that is the minimum time I would have waited to make a decision to move the article or not. If the discussion does not attract many comments or if there is no consensus, I might leave it open a while longer, but I do not think it matters in this case. Talk to you later, Kjkolb (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Thanks for all that, it's much appreciated. Sorry to hear you've not been well and I hope you are better now. It seems almost all (of a very small sample) agreed with my reasoning and it was closed by someone uninvolved without me doing anything! --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice!
Thanks for the updates in the George F. Bond article. That new ref method is very flexible, I really appreciate you pointing it out to me. Take care --Gene Hobbs (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I e-mailed you back. Also, another user is translating the french text from the page that figure is taken. See their comment on my talk page if you would like to give any input. See User_talk:Kilbad. Thanks again for everything! ---kilbad (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Diving Medicine for Scuba Divers
Diving Medicine for Scuba Divers 2010 edition
 * Looks like something we could use. :) --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Diabetic foot
This is one of the primary indications for HBOT. It is one of the problem wounds that is often referred too. Here is the major Canadian report on the topic I do not think this indication should be listed below autism which is not an approved indication.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know diabetic foot ulcers are an indication. Not sure about the others.  Will look when I have time.  Feel free to return it the way it was until than.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the textbook at home. Will check in 8 - 10 hours.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

rebreather article...
If they want a detailed breakdown of the inert gas savings and the associated decrease in cost of inert gas, this article breaks it down nicely. The weight issue is a waste of time to me. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gene, I appreciate it. I'm going to stay clear for a while until the dust settles. Crum is a stickler for good sourcing, but I respect him for that. Anthony is a really nice guy (I met him in the flesh at a wiki-meetup), who loves rebreathers but tends to write without much sourcing. It's amazing the two haven't collided before. Nevertheless, it was an interesting exercise in forcing me to see if I could source what I thought I knew. It all comes in handy when I have to teach about the differences between open and closed circuit. Cheers! --RexxS (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you know how I feel about sources. :-)  --Gene Hobbs (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rexx
There are three other pages Crohn's disease, Ulcerative colitis, Treatment of ulcerative colitis, Treatment of Crohn's disease were this user is using OR.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks James, I already noticed and am working through them right now. Does Treatment of ulcerative colitis need to go to AfD as duplicative of the information in UC? --RexxS (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would recommended you summarize one the treatment page and just have a paragraph or two on the main page. Also we should be trying to stick with review.  A single trial is not really significant.  Thanks for looking into this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt that there are any reliable reviews specific to the field of herbal treatment of bowel disease, but I'll have a look. The point is that this is either alternate or fringe medicine and we're probably lucky to have even one source that looks like it might meet WP:RS (although not MOSMED). Where a section clearly relates to alternative practices, I'd recommend that we concisely summarise the primary study (if that's all there is), and write it in terms that make it clear it is a single study. That way, we cut the ground out from under any POV-pushers who want to make more of it than there is. I think this is the sort of case where it is better to say something as neutral as possible than to say nothing. --RexxS (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

ForceFins
Hi Rexx, Regarding the addiion of additional material to the Forcefin page, I'm concerned that WatermanFF3 has put the material there for purely promotional reasons. Not of the additions are external reviews of the product, and the only reference not linked to the designer of the fins is the patent (Even the museum link says that they were submitted by the designer for a temporary on modern design exhibition.)

This material has been added (in its exact form) and reverted a number of times to wikipedia over the past 6 months (I've removed it a couple of times). While I think force fins may have a right to be included in wikipedia, the level of detail that waterman adds far exceeds any of the others, and when read carefully does't seem to make much sense. Its seems that pseudo scientific terms have been dropped in to obfuscate the fact that these are fairly ordinary fins (without a single test or review). (As opposed to the split fin design which has much less text in the article but has made a far greater difference to fin technology) I intend to revert to the level of detail originally included, but wanted to check if you were happy with this first. WatermanFF3 appears to have added this exact text in the past as watermanFF2 and watermanFF1. (The FF in the name already suggests COI). cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively if you could make the changes you think necessary it'd be great. Otherwise it may appear to be like a super slow motion edit war over 6 months or so. Cheers again! Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be very happy for you to trim down that section as it does have undue weight compared to other fins. I originally reverted it as a copyvio, but WatermanFF3 claims to have been the poster of the material included. I actually have little doubt that is true, and I am certain that he has CoI. On reflection, I'd be tempted to reduce his content dramatically based on over-reliance on WP:SPS, to dismiss the the museum info as irrelevant, and perhaps to accept the patent as a cite for the designer. I think that between the two of us we can probably generate enough support for cutting that section down to a single paragraph describing the fin and mentioning the trademark. One cite to the website and one to the patent should suffice to source that, and is probably all the exposure that WatermanFF3 could justify, relative to the other types of fin. Whatever you want to do (even a complete revert), I'll be happy, as I'm reluctant to take an axe to the piece without someone like yourself intervening in the meantime. Hope that makes sense. Cheers! --RexxS (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than reverting, I've had another go rewriting. After taking out pseudo science, I didn't end up with much fact at the end.  A google search didnt find me any independent reviews (apart from the ones actually on the fins' website), and the museum stuff was from a short exhibition in 1995 where the exhibits were submitted by the designers (I couldn't find any reference to permanent collection.  I'm not keen to keep retracting Waterman's additions (even though they're always the same) since there's no concensus behind either of us.  A fresh pair of eyes would be great.  Thanks, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You did a good job. I've relegated the section level to the same as the other fin types (from level-3 to level-4), mentioned the trademark and moved the ref to the end of the sentence. Hope that's ok. --RexxS (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice one. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

People come to wikipedia for information, perhaps more information should be added to give that to readers in the other sections, instead of deleting verifiable, accurate, descriptive, and cited information within the Force Fin section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatermanFF3 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just picked up on this. The Force Fin material was originally written by an unknown, unaffiliated member of wikipedia. Somewhere along the line it was deleted, I simply came in last November, using the original wikipedia material as my basis, cited references verifying and clarified some details with encyclopedic material A further search of the MOMA libraries as well as those at the Metropolitan Museumk of Modern Art will lead you to the items within the collection. Try searching under Bob Evans as the Artist. If it is a statement of fact, its relevant. I will disclose I am a principal in Force Fin, and that gives me the authority to verify information written as to being accurate and factual.

Force Fins are different than other fins, that is most likely why a section was dedicated to it by an unknown, unrelated wikipedia member initially. Those differences, in essence, only are stated in the text -- open foot pocket - what does that mean? It is described with reference to wikipedia defintions of the metatarsals, phlanges, etc., and direct text from patents cited with reference to the PTO. Polyurethane is distinctly used in manufacture and cited within wikipedia definition of the same. Power and recovery is essence of product differentiation and cited from PTO records... that's what you're deleting, and that is distinct, definitional, factual, and its blanket removal is hereby noticed as vandalism.

If there is something wrong with the way in which I am using this talk section, please let me know, or permission to move this text to its proper location, with advisement to me, is given. I don't have the luxury of spending as much time on the computer as others, and do my best to be appropriate. WatermanFF3 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to discuss your concerns. To answer your last question first: no, there's nothing wrong with using this talk page and you're most welcome. The rest is going to be more complex.
 * First of all, I have to remind you that the aim of what we write here is to create an encyclopedia. I know that's rather obvious, and I apologise for having to state it, but it's essential to have that in mind. As you know, the way we work is by allowing everybody to edit. The strength of that is in the sheer numbers of people who are willing to spend some time in doing it. The weakness is that it inevitably leads to different people having different opinion on all sorts of issues. The model of the way we resolve those differences is by discussing them until the vast majority can all agree on a solution - that is our concept of consensus. As a result, we have written down generalisations of some of the more common solutions and called them "policies" and "guidelines". Some of these are non-negotiable – the five pillars.
 * There is a policy called conflict of interest (CoI) and it came about because once wikipedia became popular, it was seen by some as a easy means of promoting a product. Not everybody who has a CoI edits improperly, but some do. So we have that guideline to ensure that editors have advice not only on avoiding impropriety, but also on avoiding the appearance of impropriety. You see, people who have an strong interest in a product may feel they are "toeing the line" of the policies, but their enthusiasm for the product may lead a different view of its importance from other editors. Let me give you an example: as objectively as possible, can you see what relevance the display of a Force Fin in a Museum of Modern Art has to the subject of swimfins in an encyclopedia? Of course it's relevant to Force Fins (and no doubt justifiably a source of pride), because it's a token of acceptance that raises the status of that fin, but it's not really of much use to the reader who wants to know something about different types of fins.
 * I know you are aware of the need to source claims and I believe you did so fully. However, you do need to be clear on what we mean by a reliable source. From the start, wikipedia was aware that anybody could create a website and place there anything they chose, within the bounds of law. That meant that we had to be cautious about how we treated sources. The policy crystallised as this: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So any website used as a source should be independent of whatever the text is written about. In this case, we would not consider the Force Fin website to be a reliable source for claims about Force Fins. That's not to say that we deny the accuracy of any claims, just their verifiability. We have no means of determining whether a claim made on a site is true or false, but we are willing to accept material based on websites that are independent of the subject and have a demonstrable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is not an impossible hurdle, it just means that if Force Fins reduce muscle fatigue, then we're willing to accept that if we can see that a reliable third-party has done done a study which proves it.
 * It's also worth examining the content of what you wrote. For example, I can see that you think that the use of polyurethane is important. But is it? Is it any better than using composites, polycarbonate or carbon fibre? If you know of a study from a reliable, independent source that clearly shows an advantage, then feel free to add something about polyurethane. Otherwise, what value does mentioning polyurethane have for the reader?
 * Finally, I ask you to read our policy on vandalism and identify precisely from the given types of vandalism in the table, which one you think took place when your content was rewritten. As you are inexperienced, it is only fair to warn you that making unfounded allegations of vandalism is taken very seriously on wikipedia. You may wish to strike out or remove your accusation above, by way of apology. Given your lack of understanding when you wrote it, I'm content to treat it as rather humorous, but you will need to be much more cautious in future before you make further use of the word. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you RexxS but I believe the links to ForceFin.com and other product websites are left within the edits and the links to wikipedia encyclopedic information were deleted. It does not seem to me that wikipedia edits should be made with value judgments as to whether "polyurethane" is better than other materials or not, but simply as to why it is used, what relevance it may have to being used in making a fin, any fin. Likewise, with respect to an "open toe foot pocket", almost all fins have openings which allow for water to drain, what is distinctive is definitionally linked to sources within wikipedia. That is what you are deleting,


 * We are trying to say these distinctions without value judgments, but with statements of facts. The deletions are motivated by values of the editor and that is why I contest them.


 * If there is a better way to make these statements and still give the reader the information they desire, we'll gladly entertain in discussion, but please allow time as I have other work to do also. 98.173.211.205 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. However, I politely insist that the links to ForceFin.com and other product websites do not remain in the article, other than as expressions of the opinion of the manufacturer. Please feel to explain "what relevance [polyurethane] may have to being used in making a fin". Unless it has some verifiable benefit to the reader, it's about as relevant as the fin's colour. I'd be happy to have explained to me how reading the articles Metatarsus, Phalanx bones, Plantarflexion, and Polyurethane expands my understanding of, or verifies, the claims: (1) This eliminates a major cause of cramping from fins; (2) This snapping action does the work for the kicker on the recovery and generates thrust by moving water behind; and (3) Use of polyurethane allows the fin to be designed with clean, or narrow side and leading edges, and without ribbing that can generate turbulence and impede the flow of water over the blade. That is what I am deleting along with the other text that is not backed up by an independent source. Except for the cruft about MoMA, of course, which I have deleted as irrelevant to an article about Swimfins.
 * I'd be very grateful if you did not ascribe my motivations to anything other than a desire to have our articles meet the requirements of our encyclopdia. I'll happily make this disclaimer now: I have not now, and never have had, any interest, affiliation, or relationship with any manufacturer of any scuba-related equipment (or any other sort of equipment for that matter). I hope you have now read WP:CoI.
 * I'm happy to wait as long as you wish; there is no deadline. But you may have to accept that not every piece of indiscriminate information deserves to be included in wikipedia. My advice is:
 * consider whether each piece of information is truly relevant to that encyclopedia article;
 * find as many reliable sources as you can that discuss the information;
 * summarise them in your own words, while maintaining a neutral point of view.
 * I certainly wouldn't recommend writing statements to give readers the information you think they desire, and then trying to source them. You might as well use your own website for that. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I added my thoughts at [Talk:Swimfin. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An absolutely brilliant summary - nice work.. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

HIV test deletion
Hello, forgive me if this is the improper forum for this message, as I am new to the world of Wikipedia. I recently added an external link to the HIV test page that offers a resource for HIV testing. I realize that this could be construed as a "product promotion" of sorts, but at the same time feel that it is an extremely relevant addendum to this particular Wikipedia entry. After all, the article discusses options and methods of HIV testing, and the link that I added is an additional resource for education and health-conscious action regarding the topic at hand. Would it have been more appropriate to have added some text to the Confidentiality section explaining that along these lines, there is a website that offers HIV testing in a manner that goes above and beyond the conventional methods of protecting patient privacy? (To be honest, I was thinking about it, but that sounded too "promotional" to me.) The point that I am trying to convey is that I did not intend to simply jump onto the site and promote a business or company, but rather, educate readers about their HIV testing options on what seems like a suitable forum. I'd appreciate a response on your end to perhaps clarify this matter and come to a solution that works for both of us. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJWriterM (talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a completely appropriate place to discuss and ask for advice, and you're welcome here. I'm not sure how much I can help, but I'll try.
 * If you would look at your first six edits Special:Contributions/NJWriterM, you'll see that all of your contributions consist of adding an external link to the same site to four articles. One of the edits was to move your link above several other external links. That rings alarm bells with editors who regularly see spammers with that sort of behaviour.
 * Now consider what the reader sees when they click on your link - this one for example. The pricing ($90) is clear and the page does resemble an offer to sell the reader a test.
 * You ought to spend a little time reading WP:SPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed"'
 * There's also clear guidance at WP:External links: "Links normally to be avoided: ... Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services".
 * Now, I can believe that your intention was to add something relevant and possibly useful to some readers, but how should I react when a real spammer comes along and does exactly the same as you did? Moreover, where should we draw the line? How many more online testing sites might there be in the USA? and the USA is actually only a small part of wikipedia's readership - how many external links would we have if we allowed a link to each one in the world? To prevent this sort of problem, when Jimbo Wales set up wikipedia, he specifically instructed at WP:Five pillars that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory".
 * And there's my problem. I'd love to be able to encourage you to try to find a way to get your site mentioned; but in all honesty, I can't. What I can do, is to encourage you to contribute to articles, especially where you have specialist knowledge. Any article can be improved, and you may know how to do it. Look at what is in Chlamydia infection for example. Is the current Testing section comprehensive? If not, you can add to it. But don't just add something you know, because we have to be able to verify statements. So find the published sources of what you know, re-read them and summarise them in your own words. Then add those words to the article along with a link to your source (or the name of the book, the issue of the journal, etc.). Build these articles up and make a reputation for adding good content. Who knows, you may find somewhere along the way that your website is a reliable source for some content and then it would be appropriate to cite it. I don't expect that will be very likely, I must admit – but what do I know? You're the subject expert. --RexxS (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Force Fin deletions
RexxS, I've been very careful to include information on Force Fin description under swim fins that is third party verifiable, including citations to definitions within wikipedia. These are what are being deleted in their entirety by you. If you wish to delete or clarify information posted, please let me know specifically what you feel is not true, accurate or factual, and I will either explain or work with you to make it so. Another blanket deletion will be considered by me as vandalism. WatermanFF3 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but I have posted at the article talk page. In brief, I have no idea what is not true, accurate or factual, but I am 100% certain that none of the promotional claims are verifiable by reliable sources. I assume you now understand better what constitutes vandalism. --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm; RexxS, I just had a look at the 'new' reference put up to support the Forcefin changes. It appears to be a complete hoax - its written like an advertisement and is not publishable.  There is a sample size of one and not a single reference is used to support the arguments. I can't see how this can be seen as verifiable research. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if it was reviewed and accepted as a doctoral thesis, then it would qualify as a reliable source for us. Although it would be easy to criticise on the grounds of a sample of one and the resulting complete lack of statistical analysis. It is just about possible that what we see at http://www.forcefin.com/FF_wisewords/lindsey-study.htm is only part of a more developed piece of research, so I'm willing to see if can provide a convincing source. I've tagged the text with cn and warned him on his talk page that any other editor may remove the text, as well as the likely consequences of re-inserting it. Meesier42 has stated he's not the same editor as WatermanFF3, although he fails the WP:DUCK test. If you feel I've been too tolerant, then I'll support your judgement if you want to go farther. I would have no hesitation in taking all of this to WP:ANI and WP:SPI if it looks like I've been taken for a ride. --RexxS (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Rexx, I made those claims invisible pending proper sourcing, and put the article on my watchlist. I think it's fair to assume this is the same WP:COI account, per the WP:DUCK test. In theory this could be posted on the WP:COIN page, if he persists, but hopefully he'll get the message. Thanks for your kind words, and I hope you can fix up that rebreather text soon. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Crum375 (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, I really appreciate your help and advice. I'm just trying to finish off some reference gnoming on Coffee to help the FA-Team, and I'll get back to Scuba diving! --RexxS (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. Regarding your draft, it looks good, but I have one suggestion. It seems to me that the most logical way to proceed is to update the rebreather article with your high quality sources and material, and then just lift a brief summary from it, in so-called "summary style" &mdash; perhaps the lead plus some other details &mdash; into the "rebreather" section in the scuba article. Otherwise, we run the risk of having two competing versions with different sources and perhaps even contradictions. What do you think? Crum375 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would make excellent sense, but I've emailed you with more detail. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One more point about weight comparison between OC and CC. The rebreather article mentions (for example) this source regarding bailout gases (e.g. see this image which speaks "volumes"), making the point that they can add to the total weight of the kit. This indicates to me that we need to be extra careful to avoid OR when making this comparison, if we want to make it at all, since there are other apples-and-oranges parameters besides just the gas weights. Crum375 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect bailout is probably too complex an issue for the summary (although it certainly deserves to be discussed in Rebreather). Some rebreathers can be their own bailout at shallower depths; otherwise an additional single medium-sized open circuit is often sufficient; however, some very deep divers carry a complete second CCR as backup. It's discussed in the Shreeves 2006 source that I used for most of the draft.
 * I still think the main weight and bulk difference is due to the small cylinders used in a rebreather. By baldly stating just the facts that I could support, I was trying hard to avoid any analysis, but I know it's not a simple issue. If you feel it's undue for a summary, or too close to OR, then perhaps it should be cut out. By the way, the Trevor Jackson pic shows how little kit he carried. I've carried twice that weight doing a dive to half that depth for half the time on open circuit! --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion stems from an attempt to compare weights between OC and CC sets. Given that at least some CC divers use bailout tanks, bailout becomes part of the comparison equation, despite the fact that it may be a complex topic. This is why it's better to rely on high quality secondary sources, which give us the top level picture, and not create our own content. If we have a reliable source comparing CC to OC and stating that OC is heavier, that's what we should use, not our own calculations or assumptions. Crum375 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Personally, I don't think that weight is a big issue, as it all weighs nothing once you're in the water. "Comparisons are odious" as Bottom says, and in this case even more so, because there are so many variables. How about if we cut the paragraph about cylinder weights (that's all covered elsewhere, if readers are interested), and substitute something like: "Especially for deep dives, a rebreather can offer a saving in total equipment weight when compared with open circuit." sourcing it to: "Fully equipped, the "Kraken" diver wears a backmounted equipment package that includes an integrated buoyancy compensator, instrumentation, decompression computer, regulator, breathing gas, etc. that weighs about 60 pounds. In the NITROX version, he has a practical operational depth of approximately 165 feet and can stay submerged well over two hours. Compare that to the multiple tanks, regulators, stage cylinders, decompression tanks or surface supplied gas, redundant BC's, etc. that the the typical high tech diver employs for deeper diving or penetrations into cave systems. It's not uncommon for the open circuit diver to wear over 200 pounds of equipment and he will still be limited to a relatively short stay underwater." which is the source that Anthony suggested. I know it's a big simplification/generalisation, but perhaps that's suitable in a summary? --RexxS (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Weight matters underwater :: even if the heavy kit is balanced by extra buoyancy, it still has mass and therefore inertia, and may make it slow and awkward to roll over or turn. I have scuba dived with ordinary scuba, and with a light agile Siebe Gorman Salvus, and I could feel the difference. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct, and with a single 80 cu ft and a dive skin, I'm more agile than with my twin 300 bar tanks plus stage in a drysuit. I still say, though, that the biggest difference is when you try to get them out of the water and back into the boat! --RexxS (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fins
Please state your opinion in Talk:Swimfin. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have done. I can't imagine what you were thinking. --RexxS (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

KISS rebreather
Just a quick one for you, since I noticed you'd been involved in a discussion on the rebreather page regarding external links. There's a See Also that directs to the KISS (rebreather), which seems like its avoiding the discussion. When you go to the KISS page you find little content, and all external links (like our FF brothers) got to the commercial website. (Of additional interest, two of the 'independent' articles are authored by the sales rep for the company..). I'd ordinarily put a csd notability tag on the whole article, but since theres been dicussion already I thought I'd let you know instead.

Good work on your critique of the Forcefin text - I'd actually written almost the same, but you posted yours first. The disputed reference is also questionable, so I added a few points on talk page. (Also - apparently we're both dive industry moles according to WFF3 on Crum's talkpage). Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just out of interest (since I know nothing about them) the rebreather article has a section on advantages that I understand but find a little difficult to interpret. Is it possible to include some sort of comparison with scuba regarding dive length, maximum depth and requirements for decompression?  Cheers again Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a lot more tolerant of See also than External links, since an internal link is to a subject that has been shown to be notable (for the article to exist). Spammers naturally find it easier to just throw links to external sites that have no editorial oversight. I think the references in KISS (rebreather) must have been put there to establish notability, but they do indicate sources that could be used to build the stub, so I'd be inclined to accept them with a pinch of salt. I've just cleaned up the KISS article a little and linked Gordon Smith, the inventor, as he has an article as well. I actually think Gordon Smith (inventor) is a better candidate for AfD (I'd !vote merge per WP:BLP1E), but neither of them are speediable, imho, as they both seem to assert some claim of notability.
 * I think there's a lot of work that could be done on Rebreather, along the lines you propose, but if you take a look at Talk:Scuba diving, it's extraordinarily difficult to find good quality sources that make the comparisons that we would like to see, without doing WP:OR. Perhaps I should write something myself and publish it on one of my websites, so we could cite it? (Just kidding!). I'd like to do an overhaul on the article; the way I like to work is to read a whole load of good sources first (like this) and dump them in a section of the article source page, before making suggested re-drafts. That will take some time, so please be patient with me! :) Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * You're most welcome. --RexxS (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Adminship?
Hi, RexxS. Have you considered becoming an admin? I would be delighted to nominate you. Axl ¤  [Talk]  08:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a very kind thought, Axl, and I have thought about it on occasion - particularly now that I'm semi-retired and have more time on my hands. I guess that the only problem is that I'm really a content contributor and haven't done much work in the admin areas, so I'd have to admit at RfA that I don't really need the tools. On the other hand, I like to think that I can still learn, and I'd be happy to help out anywhere that I'm needed. I'd be happy to accept a nomination and see how it goes. --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * RFA has become much tougher over the last couple of years. Now, potential admins are expected to show active participation in those admin-related areas, particularly AFD. Without that, I don't think that you'd have a good chance. RFA is also quite a stressful process.


 * Have you ever come across situations where you think "If only I had admin access, I could sort that problem out"? If not, it probably isn't worth your effort (or indeed the community's effort) to try. Your content creation remains excellent. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I occasionally contribute to RfA and I've seen how stressful it can be, contrary to the assertion that it's no big deal.
 * I have participated in some AfDs, but usually for a reason, such as where I've seen a new editor about to get their contributions deleted because they don't understand WP:N, like WP:Articles for deletion/Everything (software). I actually think AfD has quite enough participants from wannabe admins, so I've never made a habit of spending much time there.
 * There are some situations where admin tools are useful to the content contributor, like page moves over a redirect where the target has a non-trivial history, page (semi/)protection, and blocking persistent vandals who don't heed warnings. To be fair, when I've asked for admin intervention in those areas, I've had good responses more than 90% of the time. I suppose the best case I could make for extra tools is to avoid bugging those who helped me in the past, and hopefully to pay back some of that kindness by doing work at WP:Admin backlog, although I'd probably keep clear of Pokémon investigations! --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, you're not giving me a compelling argument to award you the admin tools. If you ever find that you're getting bored of content creation and want to branch out, let me know. Best wishes. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  20:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There will probably never be a compelling argument for me to have the tools, and that's likely more a reflection on how Wikipedia sees its admins nowadays than on how useful the tools might be. Between scuba, medicine and helping out at FA-Team, I doubt I'll ever get bored with content. Thanks again for the kind thought, and I'll be sure to let you know if I ever feel like branching out! --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)