text:
Talk:Scuba set

Queries
If an image belongs with a paragraph, I put the image description line before the paragraph's title line so that the image comes as high as possible within the paragraph, to cut down the amount that the image intrudes into the next paragraph. Anthony Appleyard 07:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that concise style implies, that images and text belong under a heading, in fact, no content in a structured article should be outside hierarchically nested headings. By the way -- why is the title of this article in plural? AtonX 10:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to keep re-editing the text, but:- Both types of scuba sets consist of

i) a breathing gas supply stored in a high pressure diving cylinder , Not true with potassium superoxide rebreathers. Arguably not true with liquid-air scuba.

ii) a diving regulator attached to the diving cylinder Not true with constant-flow open-circuit sets or with some rebreathers. We must cover old sets as well as modern sets.

Rebreathers also employ advanced electronics to monitor and regulate the composition of the breathing gas. Not all rebreathers, and not old-type rebreathers. I have been in scuba diving from before divers' lifejackets were heard of. Pony cylinders and stage cylinders are an important feature and should be mentioned. Anthony Appleyard 00:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cylinders, regulators and stages

 * Firstly, in potassium superoxide rebreathers the scrubber filling also produces oxygen, but these rebreathers, too, contain a high pressure cylinder to top up the loop with breathing gas, which gets compressed with the depth! In liquid air scuba, the liquified breathing gas is also stored in a high-pressure cylinder. Thus, I argue, a high pressure cylinder is a general part of both types of scuba sets - aqualungs and rebreathers.
 * Secondly, old constant-flow open-circuit sets as well as some rebreathers contain a constant flow regulator (more correctly - a constant mass flow regulator), whereas the aqualungs and the rest of the rebreathers contain a constant pressure regulator. Hence, generally it is a regulator which is a general part of scuba sets. The term demand regulator is -- in my opinion -- highly misleading. It is technically a constant gas pressure regulator combined with a demand valve.
 * Thirdly, pony cylinders and stage cylinders are an important feature of a diver's equipment, I agree. However, they are just independent aqualung-type scuba sets attached to the diver to enhance his/her safety or gas supply, they are not parts of what this article describes - a scuba set. Logically, you can't say a scuba set is a part of a scuba set. They belong to articles on diving equipment or configuring cylinders, otherwise it is just duplicate information in the encyclopaedia. Similarly, wings and/or jackets are not a part of the breathing apparatus. They are attached to the harness, but so is the knife, the light canister, the weights etc.  Here, they are misplaced - for the sake of logic and clarity, they belong to different articles! AtonX
 * 14:30, 27 December 2004 User:AtonX
 * Whether we call pony cylinders part of the same set or another set, is a matter of definition. Anthony Appleyard 23:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * True, and I dont remember seeing a definition stating that they are part of the same set, so can you provide a reference? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate sections
An edit note: there were sections of this page that were exact duplicates of previous sections. A copy-n-paste gone wrong? I'm not sure. In any case, I've removed them. Thayvian 19:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spearfishing?
Should we be encouraging spearfishing (by including it in the links) amongst scuba divers, esp given how many organisations dissaprove of it.

 * I agree with you that some divers oppose spear fishing (personally, it's not something I do, and I prefer it not be done when I'm near it in the water), but I don't think it belongs as an italicized comment to the link. My suggestion would be to add a spear fishing segment to SCUBA to bring it up there and cite concerns.  It just doesn't belong as a comment on the link.  Wikibofh 6 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead we should be linking to the spear-fishing article and debates about ethics could be brought up there? Justin 16:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nitrox
Would a bit about nitrox be ok here? Justin 17:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Why not put it in Enriched_Air_Nitrox? Mark.murphy 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful with the need for an "oxygen cylinder" for mixing Nitrox. The way this is worded makes it appear that the diver has an O2 tank in addition to the "air" tank. Also, most dive shops I know no longer use the O2 mixing method to produce enriched air. The are now "de-nitrifying" air to produce "oxygen enriched air". It is safer and does not require an O2 cleaned cylinder for the diver. I also believe that the author intended the questioned phrase to be something like, "an O2 cleaned cylinder is needed to store the Nitrox". Then a rationale could be given. In fact, an entire section just on production of oxygen enriched air might be in order. 199.244.214.30 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)--Reader:dmgambs
 * I've re-written the last paragraph of the section "Open circuit scuba sets" to try to remove the ambiguity. My usual dive shops still use partial pressure blending, so I suspect the phrase "common method" may vary regionally. I've changed it to reflect the lack of consensus for "the most common". Have a look at the article Gas blending as that is the most appropriate place for the section on production of oxygen enriched air (if you think the content already there could be usefully improved). --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the think about valve, I'm not happy with the wording. The point is that the grease and rubber are part of the tank valve, the problem is that our cousins cross-the-pond insist on calling a regulator a "valve" and I'm not sure the best way to bridge our problem of having a common language that isn't.  Suggestions are welcome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 03:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Circular window
"Captain Trevor Hampton in the 1950's or 1960's designed an early single-hose aqualung with a fullface mask with a circular window which was a very big and thus very sensitive demand regulator diaphragm."

Did the circular window somehow act as the diaphragm? --Gbleem 06:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The first 4 sentences of this article
It seems quite odd to me that the first 3 sentences of this article are about the origins of the name. Only in the fourth sentence is the name defined.

Is it really necessary to note the origins of foreign language words at all in this article? It does not seem relevant to this article - this is an English language article on a technical subject. I would probably find this information interesting if I chose to read an article about loan words, acronyms or the origins of words used in Welsh - not here. Even if it is justified, I don't think the origin of a word in any foreign language deserves such prominence on the third sentence in this article. Mark.murphy 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi, all & Mark, yes, it's an oddly oblique start, and then it hit me: the intro does not say what a SCUBA does! The main function is to keep changing the delivered air pressure so that the diver can breath at a changed water depth; for example 44 psi 66 feet down in sea water and 59 psi at 100 feet. I'll change the intro; I hope the community will accept the change and make it better and briefer than I can write it.
 * Jerry-va (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I have had a go at revising the whole lead section to be more accurate, and with luck more grammatically correct. Take a look and see if you agree. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I've tweaked the bit about "stored gas is provided through regulators as required" because SCCRs tend to use fixed-rate injectors, not a demand system. Conventionally, we don't normally use guillemets, so I've replaced them with normal quotation marks. It's acceptable to use italics to delineate a definition term (), and for when a word is used as a word, but shouldn't be overused, and I generally prefer quotation marks - see WP:WORDSASWORDS. The point of putting "self-contained underwater breathing apparatus" in the first sentence is that it's a common alternative title, and needs to be bold per our convention on bolding article titles and their plausible alternates - see WP:BOLDTITLE. HTH, --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I like your changes, but injector nees explanation. You are not referring to a manual addition valve, because you state fixed rate, which suggeste sonic orifice to me. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm torn between explaining WP:JARGON and respecting the convention that the WP:LEAD of an article just gives an overview without going into too much detail. The detail really belongs in the body of the article (or in daughter articles). For the moment, I've wikilinked to Rebreather and Rebreather, although I'm aware that CCR rebreathers may also "inject" gas into the loop. The SCCR system I am most familiar with is described here: http://www.halcyon.net/node/49 in the Semi Closed Active Addition section, but I accept that other mechanisms exist. The Draeger Dolphin has been quite popular in the UK as well. --RexxS (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * A link is good. I think the explanation is more appropriate in Rebreather, as long as there is one there. There has been a lot of creep in 'Scuba set' with a tendency to put in stuff that is more appropriate in other articles. I have had a bash at cleaning it up. Apologies for inadvertant errors, but I think it is now tighter and more consistent, with less waffle than before, and probably a new outbreak of typos.
 * The semi-closed active addition system is usually a sonic orifice, either a fixed orifice or a needle valve. I am fairly familiar with the theory and practical examples, including the Dolphin, and it does seem like these are commonly referred to by divers as injectors.Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

FDA
Regarding this sentence: Exotic gas mixtures presently used in scuba are intended to prevent decompression illness in diving, but officially, the FDA appears to continue to believe that scuba divers all use compressed air.

Either the FDA "officially" recognizes something or they only appear to recognize something because it isn't official policy. Instead of conjecturing as to what their policy may or may not be, how about finding a reference? Mojodaddy (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Added a "citation needed" to this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.78.252 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I can't find a source saying that the FDA appears to believe that all scuba divers use compressed air (officially or otherwise). The sentence seems to be editorial comment based on (i) The FDA designates non-air gas mixtures intended to prevent or treat diseases as drugs (sourceable); (ii) The FDA does not regulate the use of other gases in scuba diving to avoid DCI (may be sourceable, but more likely an inference from the lack of FDA regulation). That is a kind of synthesis and is WP:OR without a reliable source which states that conclusion. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can modify the wording, but you cannot escape logic. If the FDA has no regulation on scuba breathing gases intended to prevent DCI (as it certainly does on the oxygen to TREAT DCI-- look at those dive boat kits), then that MEANS it does not regulate these gases for this purpose. Lack of regulation = does not regulate. This is not a synthesis; this is a restatement of plain English. If you can't do that much, you're going to have hard time writing an encyclopedia. As for the rest, if the FDA regulates all exotic gases for the purpose of preventing diseases (as they state they do), and DCI is a disease (do you need a reference), and the FDA does not regulate exotic scuba gases for the prevention of DCA, it is a matter of simple logic to determine that the FDA either does not know about exotic scuba gases (unintentially ignoring them), or is intentionally ignoring them, or else is making a erroneous statement in its initial regulatory claims of coverage. There are no other possiblities. WP:SYN does not include arithmetic, and it does not include logical syllogism. If all men are mortal {citation provided} and Mr. X is a man {citation provided} then I can write in his bio that he is mortal and don't need a cite for that. S B Harris 18:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the problems for a minority sport such as ours, Steve, is that we have a lack of recognised pundits and very few researchers – Peter Bennett & the folks at DAN, our own Gene Hobbs and the team at Duke come to mind; but then who? Even so a lot of the real research is a spin-off from projects on human spaceflight or aviation – there's little funding for scuba research. The result is that we don't fit Jimbo's idea of sourcing – the "if it's worthy of inclusion, somebody reliable will have said it" kind of view. That's what our policies are built around, and with the best will in the world, your chain of logic doesn't fit that scheme. All that you say is logical, and my personal view is that I'd agree 100% with the truth of it. Unfortunately, I still can't find anybody more eminent than you or I who has published the point about the FDA and breathing gases. No matter what we think, as soon as any of us put together two sources and draw a conclusion, we fall foul of the OR policy, even if it's logical (the directly and explicitly supported by the source phrase in WP:OR). We might be able to argue the exception for something being obvious (we don't need a source for "the sky is blue"), but I doubt it would hold up in this case. I've no intention of modifying the wording, but I couldn't honestly object if someone else chose to. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Wales is simply wrong, if you take him at his literal word, and the policy illustrates this. The policy WP:CALC, which is cited within WP:NOR actually proves he's wrong; is an admission that he's wrong. If he were right, there would be no reason to have the WP:CALC policy at all-- any calculation answer which is true, should be easy to find a citation for, according to what Wales says. But it isn't. S  B Harris 01:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous
"Still, most semi-closed systems allow at least twice the duration of open circuit systems (around 2 hours)."

Which lasts 2 hours, the semi-closed or the open circuit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.129.187 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The semi-closed. The preceding paragraph illustrated a 40 minute duration for open circuit. RexxS (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Air Cylinders section
As this article has been around for some time, I thought I should flag up a revision I'm about to make. The article states "The drawback is that aluminium cylinders are neutrally buoyant when full, and positively buoyant when nearing empty. This results in having to monitor buoyancy during the dive more closely..." Why should a correctly weighted diver need to monitor more closely? The change in buoyancy as a cylinder empties is precisely the weight of air lost (about 1 lb for each 14 cubic foot of free air). It simply doesn't matter what the cylinder is made of. The real drawback of Al cylinders compared to steel is that they tend to be much thicker (and heavier despite the lower density of Al). This increases the total volume of the diver+set, which equates to a greater total weight to carry out of the water. RexxS (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

First and second stage, automat and dry suit
The first stage: is the section between the air bottle (using an INT or DIN-connection) and the pillar valve and serves to lower the bottle pressure to a lower (medium ? or breathing (low)?) pressure. The second stage: runs from the pillar valve to the mouthpiece (breathing/low pressure ?)

The pillar valve thus contains the valves required to reduce the air pressure.

A automat (not mentioned in article), is thus simply an air hose with a attached component.

The above needs to be integrated to the article/clarified.

Another question: there is a connection of the bottle to the dry suit (if one is used), but does this actually consume air, or is it simply hermeticly sealed. Also, I'm wondering whether air from the dry suit and from the buoyancy regulator (trimjacket) can actually be reused (to increase available air).

KVDP (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The pillar valve is the top part of the diving cylinder. It contains a screw-valve operated by a knob which turns the supply on or off. It does not otherwise regulate the pressure. The pillar valve has a connector allowing the first stage of the diving regulator to be attached to it.
 * The connection between the diving cylinder and the diving regulator is an 'A' clamp or DIN screw fitting (either 5 or 7 thread for 232 bar or 300 bar equipment respectively).
 * The first stage is the first part of the regulator and is the part attached to the cylinder. Its purpose is to reduce the high pressure of the cylinder to an intermediate pressure (about 10 bar above ambient pressure).
 * The second stage is connected via a flexible hose between the first stage and the diver's mouth. The second stage (also called 'demand valve') allows air to be delivered to the diver at ambient pressure when the diver breathes in (i.e. 'on demand') and that valve is inside a casing with a mouthpiece that the diver places in his mouth.
 * An 'automat' is a vending machine (see the article you linked) - I know of no use of the word in a diving context.
 * I agree that many of these articles need to be tidied up. But read the articles I linked on diving cylinders and regulators. I think you'll find all the information in there (somewhere).
 * There is an hose connection to both the BCD and the drysuit. The air supplied in each case is vented on ascent and is not really reusable, other than in absolutely dire emergency. We used to teach how to breathe from a BCD or ABLJ, but the risk of microbial infection from organisms growing inside the BCD made training inadvisable. --RexxS (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 * made this image File:Diving cilinder schematic.JPG
 * If there are any mistakes, ... let me know
 * 81.243.183.37 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the schematic. There are a few things that you could improve on the legend:
 * 1 = Breathing gas cylinder
 * 3 = Pillar valve knob
 * 4 = Regulator first stage
 * 5 = Primary second stage
 * 6 = Submersible pressure gauge
 * 7 = Secondary second stage (octopus)
 * 8 = BCD hose
 * A isn't needed (already labelled 4)
 * B is wrong and not needed (second stages are 5 and 7)

 * And on the image:
 * The first stage is larger and is fitted at 90 degrees to the pillar valve - look at File:Diving regulator DIN first stage.jpg and File:Pillar valve DIN 232.jpg for close-ups

 * Do you use Inkscape or another vector graphics program? Any image is much better than none, but an .svg would allow others to modify (and translate into other languages) much easier.
 * When you decide on the size of the thumbnail on the page, keep in mind that the page may be printed out, so the image is most useful if it can be read. In this case I'd recommend 400px or thereabouts.
 * Finally, wouldn't the schematic be more appropriate here at 'Scuba set', rather than using it at 'Diving cylinder' (which of course is only a part of the set). Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality rating
Per User:Sbharris in this edit, it is not a stub and needs re-rating. I suggest the options are: I would say that it meets C class, but does it achieve B?
 * B: Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher
 * C: Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.

Detailed B-class criteria state:

Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 Quite a lot of uncited statements, some dubious, but now mostly tagged. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhat improved by now, but still some way to go. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 Complies for coverage, bit shaky on accuracy in several places.Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * 3 Looks OK Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now better.Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 Can use some work, but not too bad. Good enough? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Better than it was I hope. Always room for improvement, but I think good enough as it stands.Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 Seems adequate to me. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * 6 Looks OK to me. Certainly not over-technical in general. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall I think it needs more work for B class. I will temporarily uprate to C. Input requested. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * It's certainly C-class - see WikiProject Scuba diving/Assessment, but the lack of references for many sections and multiple cn tags leave it short of B-class because of B1. It's well on its way against criteria B2-B6, and it may be that as more references are found the structure could be improved and other supporting materials added. This is, of course, an overview article and a balance needs to be struck between summarising articles such as Diving regulator, Diving cylinder, Rebreather, etc. and leaving it to the reader to visit those articles for the detail. --RexxS (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be up to B by now. There is a citation needed for the last paragraph of the Rebreather section which eludes me, and that paragraph could be more elegantly phrased. Also a collection of unreferenced trivia and a small number of fairly uncontroversial points that would be better properly referenced. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Still short on citations, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
(Discussion copied from Talk:Rebreather)

I suggest that Diffuser (breathing set part) should be merged into this article as for most purposes it is a part of the structure of a diving rebreather and is hardly ever found on open circuit diving equipment. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that we might have to follow the sources here, . Although I agree that Rebreather would be the obvious choice to us, at least two of the four sources in Diffuser (breathing set part) discuss the use of specialised diffusers in conjunction with open-circuit scuba. That indicates to me that we ought to also consider the possibility of merging Diffuser into Scuba set, where all four sources would be relevant. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point . I quite agree to merging any parts that are useful into the appropriate articles. My objection to the current article is that it is a subset of diffusers that just happen to be used in diving equipment, and a subset of component parts of diving equipment that happen to be diffusers. This is not a particularly notable way of distinguishing between diffusers, and unlikely to become a significant article anytime soon. We may as well have an article on bolts used in the construction industry. I would be quite happy with merging into a more inclusive destination. I have not heard of diffusers used on SSDE, so scuba set may well be the best place available. I will revise the notices accordingly. • • • (Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point . I quite agree to merging any parts that are useful into the appropriate articles. My objection to the current article is that it is a subset of diffusers that just happen to be used in diving equipment, and a subset of component parts of diving equipment that happen to be diffusers. This is not a particularly notable way of distinguishing between diffusers, and unlikely to become a significant article anytime soon. We may as well have an article on bolts used in the construction industry. I would be quite happy with merging into a more inclusive destination. I have not heard of diffusers used on SSDE, so scuba set may well be the best place available. I will revise the notices accordingly. • • • (Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point . I quite agree to merging any parts that are useful into the appropriate articles. My objection to the current article is that it is a subset of diffusers that just happen to be used in diving equipment, and a subset of component parts of diving equipment that happen to be diffusers. This is not a particularly notable way of distinguishing between diffusers, and unlikely to become a significant article anytime soon. We may as well have an article on bolts used in the construction industry. I would be quite happy with merging into a more inclusive destination. I have not heard of diffusers used on SSDE, so scuba set may well be the best place available. I will revise the notices accordingly. • • • (Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(end copied discussion - continue from here) Notices revised. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Breathing gasses section
All,

Reading through this, it feels pretty comprehensive on the mechanical side, but the breathing gas piece feels a bit cursory by comparison, especially since the rest of the article makes reference to using pure oxygen, trimix and other 'exotics' ... so spending a bit of space on what people breathing and how it has evolved feels as important as the equivalent technical side. I've had a go at a replacement block for that section, but since this is a high importance page, and I'd need to suss out sourcing and links before putting it in, I've put proposed text below rather than directly editing the article at this stage. Its longer, but not more so than the other sections. I've tried to give some basic information on what factors matter, then how they have impacted recreational, technical and open & closed circuit over time. Thoughts? Greg (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed text :-

Whilst common, compressed air is not the only gas used in scuba sets. As depth increases the pressure of each component of the gas (known as the partial pressure of that gas) also rises, bringing five effects that need managing, and may justify the use of different breathing gasses in the scuba set to safely support the goals of the dive effectively.
 * If the partial pressure of oxygen rises above 1.6 Bar, there is a risk of a dangerous toxic reaction that cause convulsions, which in turn makes it improbable that the breathing apparatus will stay in the mouth
 * If the proportion of oxygen in the breathing gas is reduced to avoid the toxic effects that come from depth, it may no longer be safely breathable at shallow depths, with 16% at the surface taken as a minimum below which there is an excessive risk
 * Inert gases, such as the nitrogen that makes up 79% of air, dissolve in the body at a rate the depend their partial pressures, and vary for different tissues. As the diver surfaces this dissolved gas needs to leave the body, and surfacing too fast risks this dissolved gas forming bubbles in the body, producing Decompression Sickness, also known as the bends
 * Too high a partial pressure of nitrogen creates nitrogen narcosis which has symptoms similar to drunkenness, that reduce the abilities of the diver to manage their dive safely. The severity of this effect varies between divers, though if using air, many experience some mild symptoms below 30m and it is often severe enough that most agencies today limit its use below 40-45m
 * Carbon dioxide forms a tiny part of normal air, so the dangerous effects of an excess (called hypercapnia) are not experienced. But, where the breathing gas is recycled as it is in closed circuit sets, the carbon dioxide needs to be removed

Early closed circuit scuba sets used gasses with high percentages of oxygen which restricted the depth at which they could be used. When open circuit scuba was invented it used compressed and filtered air which was the only economically available gas, but did allow use deeper than possible with closed circuit scuba of the time. Care was still required, particularly to avoid carbon monoxide from engine exhausts being drawn into the air inlet, as the increased partial pressures at depth makes even very small amounts of carbon monoxide dangerous.

Within recreational open circuit diving the main limit experienced is from the dissolved inert gases. To help extend such dives, some divers began using breathing gas mixtures known as Nitrox that replace some of the nitrogen with oxygen. But, using Nitrox does increase the risk of oxygen toxicity at depth, so using Nitrox also means the diver needs to be closely aware of the maximum operating depth (MOD) for their breathing gas. Concerns about these risks meant initial adoption was fairly slow. But by the late 1990s the use of Nitrox in recreational diving became widely spread, with Nitrox course become some of the most common post Open Water qualifications. Typical Nitrox mixes used recreationally are EAN32 (32% oxygen), and EAN36 (36% oxygen)

For diving deeper than recreational levels, the level of nitrogen narcosis can be reduced by using some helium in the breathing gas - a mix known as Trimix if there is still some nitrogen, or Heliox it is just a mix of oxygen and helium. In open circuit scuba the cost of this helium can become a material part of the overall costs. In addition, the level of oxygen in breathing gasses required at the various depths may range from a ‘bottom mix’ that has too little oxygen to be breathable on the surface (known as hypoxic mixes), through to high levels used to reduce the decompression time taken for inert gasses to leave the body, but which have quite shallow Maximum Operating Depths. In open circuit diving these high oxygen percentage decompression / shallow mixes are in separate independent scuba sets, known as stages, that the diver carries along with their main set. Safe use of these types of gas mixes is one of the reasons that substantially more experience, skill and training is required to be able to safely conduct technical dives, whether open or closed circuit.

The mix of breathing gas in a closed circuit (rebreather) scuba set is not fixed as it is in open circuit. The system is filled from a cylinder of gas, known as the diluent, that is similar to the found in open circuit systems used at a similar depth. But, whilst some diluent needs to be added to offset pressure as depth increases, unlike open circuit the bulk of this gas is recycled. As the diver breathes, the carbon dioxide they exhale is removed, and the oxygen they have used is replaced from a separate pure oxygen cylinder. Early rebreathers used a continuous slow feed of oxygen that approximately matched the rate the resting usage rate of the diver. If they had to work harder they could manually add more. Modern closed circuit rebreather scuba sets maintain a set partial pressure of oxygen automatically, though some divers still prefer to use a manual system. A diver using a rebreather for a technical dive would typically still carry one or more independent scuba sets (stages) for safety in the event that there is an issue with their rebreather.

 * , There is a separate article on breathing gas linked from the section. Most of it is about breathing gases for diving, which includes scuba, and goes into much more detail than this article, which is about scuba sets, which are the equipment used to deliver the breathing gas. When a scuba set is empty, it does nor stop being a scuba set, so the gas it contains is peripheral information. Do you think that it is really useful to expand this article to include that peripheral information, when a more extensive coverage is a click away? It is necessary to mention the breathing gas, as it is necessary to the function of the equipment, and to understanding this function, but the details of the gases used are beyond the scope of the article. Whenever there is sufficient information to justify a specific article, it is split off and replaced by a link and a summary, to keep the original article at a readable and manageable length. You are welcome to provide reasons why you may think I am mistaken in this case.  • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 * It's a fair point. But if the section is worth including then I still think it a bit unbalanced to omit the range of fairly commonly used Scuba gasses in favour of extra detail on recreational Nitrox.  Maybe a compromise would be something like "Until nitrox, which contains more oxygen than air, was widely accepted in the late 1990s, almost all recreational scuba used simple compressed and filtered air. Other gas mixtures, typically used for deeper dives, may substitute helium for some or all of the nitrogen (called trimix, or heliox if there is no nitrogen), or use lower proportions of oxygen than that found in air.  In these situations divers often carry separate scuba sets, called stages, with gas mixtures with higher levels of oxygen that are primarily used to reduce decompression time.  These gas mixes allow longer dives, better management of the risks of decompression sickness, oxygen toxicity or lack of oxygen (hypoxia), and the severity of nitrogen narcosis.  Closed circuit scuba sets have a gas mix that is controlled dynamically to best optimise the mix for the actual depth at that point in time." Greg (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 * , Nice summary. It should not take long to reference it, then go ahead and make the change. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Your more comprehensive explanation above may be worth considering for addition to the Breathing gas article as an introduction to the section on breathing gases for diving and other hyperbaric use. Some work would be necessary to blend it in with the existing content. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Done inc, references which now covers all of the items in the 'See also' piece in the same section, so I took that out. Also sorted citation for the adoption of Nitrox for recreational use which was missing in the original.  Will have a look at the intro in the Breathing gas article when I get a chance, but prob not for a week or two. Greg (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

NOT reverting unrelated, GOOD editions while correcting bad ones!
Okay, for some reason you guys think that when you repair damage, such as breaking links, you have to go in and undo improvements that were made at about the same time as the damage. Fine, undo the damage; that makes sense. But while you do it, it's your responsibility to make ONLY those fixes; not to undo changes that are actually GOOD to go along with them. Why can't you just make your changes that fix broken things like links while leaving actual improvements alone?

I already explained on your talk pages why those other changes should exist. So be responsible enough to make your repairs and leave the unrelated edits--improvements as I demonstrated in your talk pages, including orders by MOS:HYPHEN}] and [[WP:TENSE--alone.

97.117.54.205 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Just how long have you been editing on Wikipedia? I ask so that I have a better idea of what I should expect you to know, and so that I do not react too strongly to someone who has not been here long enough to learn the ropes. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply to 97.117.54.205/185: You made over 20 changes in a single edit. That causes problems for other editors reviewing the changes. In one paragraph, you changed the tense describing a 1990s prototype from past to present. I disagree with that as there is no evidence that the prototype still exists 25 years later. In the same paragraph you also broke the link to Diving regulator, so I reverted those changes to that paragraph alone. I have no problem with your other changes. You have now reverted to your version, breaking the link, three more times. The onus is on you to make a case for your changes when challenged, not to edit-war to try to force your broken version back into the article. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply to 97.117.54.205/185: You made over 20 changes in a single edit. That causes problems for other editors reviewing the changes. In one paragraph, you changed the tense describing a 1990s prototype from past to present. I disagree with that as there is no evidence that the prototype still exists 25 years later. In the same paragraph you also broke the link to Diving regulator, so I reverted those changes to that paragraph alone. I have no problem with your other changes. You have now reverted to your version, breaking the link, three more times. The onus is on you to make a case for your changes when challenged, not to edit-war to try to force your broken version back into the article. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I see that the individual improvements have been made back now, so that's good, but I still have these concerns for you to address:
 * I've been here on the site for a long time, but some people--like you and rexxs--still seem to think that you have no responsibility to leave unrelated edits alone while reverting the things that you have your specific gripes about. So I'm doing that same thing in reverse: undoing all the edits, and then having you redo ONLY those edits that you have concerns with. Why can't you just leave the other ones alone like you're supposed to do?
 * I refer you to WP:POINT - Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
 * If you have been here for a long time you should know better than to edit war. If you were new I would have more sympathy. As you claim to have been editing here for a long time, you will be held responsible for any disruptive and uncivil behaviour and must take the consequences. You should also know that all caps (shouting) is considered impolite. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

, where do you keep getting the oddball idea that I was supposedly editing the 'Pedia to "make a point"? What supposed "point" could I have been trying to make? And why is it that you put all the blame on me for disruptive editing, when it was really rexx and YOU who kept on insisting that you destroy unrelated edits while making the ones that you really had the concern about? If you can destroy my good edits to revert yours back in, then why is it supposedly so "wrong" for me to destroy edits to redo my good edits? Why is it supposedly "my fault" that you and rexx can't have the decency to make ONLY the edits that you're really concerned about instead of throwing out ALL my edits in that session just because they were made by the editor who made the ones that you were concerned about? All-caps aren't shouting unless you do it for more than one word or term in a row. Let me show you what shouting is NOT: <--That. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF SHOUTING, THOUGH, BECAUSE IT'S A WHOLE STRING OF WORDS IN A ROW! You see the difference? When you do it with just one word or term at a time then all it is is just another form of EMPHASIS when you don't feel like using Italics or boldness.

Now before we reply here, let's just go down to the bottom, because you may have already answered at least one of my questions down there.

97.117.54.205 (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 * , I see that the individual improvements have been made back now, so that's good, but I still have these concerns for you to address:
 * I wasn't trying to force my broken version back into the article. I was just using the same tactic you were using to redo the GOOD edits, which happened to redo the bad ones, which is the same irresponsible tactic you were using on me to undo the bad edits, so that you can see that you were making the mistake of ruining good edits while fixing bad ones. So if you have no problem with my other changes (adding the needed hyphens and removing the stray quotation marks), then why do you keep reverting them along with your reversion of the broken links? How do you figure that the onus is not on you to make the repairs and then leave the edits you have no problem with ALONE?

 * And then where did you get the idea to report me even though I had NOT made any new edits to the article since the time that you said you would report me IF I did, which I had not done?

 * 97.117.54.205 (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

 * As I mentioned above, you reap the consequences of your actions. When you make a series of edits of which the overall balance is bad, you can reasonably expect them to be reverted wholesale. The other editors are not here to carefully salvage those parts of your edits which might be slight improvements. They too are volunteers, and must make a reasoned decision as to whether the time spent is worthwhile. Fixing damage comes first. Minor adjustments to spelling and grammar may be worthwhile in the long run, and are generally welcome, but are not urgent, and do not justify disrupting the work of other editors who may have several options of better things to do waiting in line for their attention. When you add uncivil behaviour it does not improve your case.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One more thing, Please read and understand WP:VANDALISM before accusing other editors of vandalism. It has a specific meaning here and inappropriate use is not suffered gladly. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Petey, I get that they might not want to go through and remake my edits for me. That's not what I was expecting. But reversions can be done without undoing everything from one editing session. Look: what you two reverted was more UNRELATED stuff (not shouting; just choosing that as my method of emphasis for that word) than it was of your real concern, the correcting of links. What would have been "so hard," according to you, about just retyping the capital letters to correct the links, which would not be the same thing as having to go back through and redoing my edits?

And how do you figure that my behavior of doing exactly what you two were doing--including unwanted changes in a reversion while adding my changes back, which IS what you two were doing--is supposedly any more "uncivil" for me to have done it than when you two did it?

And how about you tell rexxs to read the vandalism essay instead of me, since he was first at falsely accusing my posts to his page of being "vandalism" by saying "rvv" (a common wiki-dumb way of saying "re-vert vandalism") in his edit summaries of deleting my posts without having any decency to reply to them?

97.117.54.205 (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 * The horse is dead, you can stop beating it now, pack up your soapbox and move on. If you are here to build the encyclopedia, do it, but I have wasted enough time on what now appears to be simple trolling behind the shelter of anonymity. If you want further discussion from me, move on to something more constructive and less about yourself. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Been awhile since I've been able to contribute (apologies), but on the narrow point of present-vs-past tense Edit Wars, in reading the WP:TENSE, I find: Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such.  Given that the product in question dates from a quarter century ago and was known to have only been a prototype, not an ongoing product available still today for sale, I find the use of the past tense to be consistant with this guidance.  Therefore, Peter's editorial change to employ past tense is AFAIC correct and 100% appropriate.  -hh (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Scuba which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose to merge Camstrap into Scuba set as it is a component part. There are other uses of similar items, but they are not the same and can best be mentioned where they are relevant. Current article Camstrap has been tagged as unsourced since December 2009, it is very small with little chance of much expansion. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss:
 * No objections, so will do the merge.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scuba set. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104080007/http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/ to http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030022352/http://www.espalion-12.com/scaphandre/autonomie/scaphandre_autonome.htm to http://www.espalion-12.com/scaphandre/autonomie/scaphandre_autonome.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

SCUBA
This is an acronym. SCUBA. It even says this in the article. 79.106.209.51 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scuba set


text:
User talk:RoySmith/Archive 2

Archive 1

City Island page move
See the corrseponding talk page. No offense, but I'm REALLY tired. Pacific Coast Highway 03:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You
You are most welcome to visit my new user page, you feature in it.

MOS rant
Thanks for the comment about my MOS rant — I was semi-expecting more opposition than agreement, so it's great to hear that someone agrees with me! If only others saw it the same way... :-D Neonumbers 09:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Crusader
Thanks for the note about my successful RfA. You have always been something of a diambiguation crusader hero of mine. --Commander Keane 20:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
I'm sorry you found reason to be neutral on my request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future. ALKIVAR ™ 07:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

{{2LCdisambig}}
I replied to your question on my talk page.—GraemeMcRaetalk 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguating abbreviations
You contributed to the TFD discussion for 2LCdisambig. I am following this with further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Susvolans ⇔ 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Church of Reality
And you deleted the Church of Reality because? --Marcperkel 02:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Because it was a recreation of a previously deleted article, as per Articles for deletion/Church of reality and Criteria for speedy deletion (item General/4) --RoySmith 02:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The reason it was originally deleted was that at the time it was considered to not be notable with 3,000 google hits and it wasn't an IRS recognized church. It now has 24,900 google hits and it is an IRS recognized church. So the reason it was deleted no longer exists. So - can you undelete it? --Marcperkel 02:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I see you've already listed it on WP:DRV, which is the correct procedure, thank you. If the consensus there is that it should be undeleted, I (or some other admin) will be happy to undelete it.  --02:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * But there are LIES there about the CoR having only ONE member. I'm correcting that.

--Marcperkel 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't threaten anyone. I will direct members to plead the case of the Church of Reality direcly to those who are blocking it. If we can't talk about it in the undelete section then we will have to go to those who are deleting it. If you won't let me speak then they will help me be heard. --Marcperkel 19:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * For the record, he's already sent out an e-mail telling people on his little mailing list to post things to my user page. I think he's on the fast track to getting blocked, personally. --Fastfission 19:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your post on the Administrators%27 noticeboard... ''Church of Reality was recently deleted after an ugly fight culminating in the author of that article, Mark Perkel, being blocked for a week and deleted page being protected. Perkel then userfied the CofR page. Now, there's a Marc Perkel article, which contains a wikilink to that userfied version. It's unclear how to deal with this. On the one hand, I guess a user has the right to put whatever they want on their user pages. On the other hand, this looks like it's really just a clever way to get around the deletion process. Perhaps some more experienced admins could take a look at this and figure out what (if anything) should be done? --RoySmith 17:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)'' (I hope you don't mind the c/p... I didn't feel like my comment should be on that page...) I "userfied" a small subset of the CofR page (which I outlined here), not Marc (not that it actually makes a difference, but I feel I should take credit for that blunder). I also put the link to that page into the Marc Perkel article, but it looks like Cryptic fixed that. I didn't know linking to the user space from the main space was against policy... Anyway, I just wanted to apologize and let you know that I actually created the sub page and I'm still not even sure that Marc even knows about it... Only one other user has even touched it for the whole week it has been up and all he did was remove the stubs I added to the bottom of the post. (Which apparently is also against policy...) Sorry about that. Paul talk+ 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I just realized that the Church of Reality page on Wikipedia was deleted, and stumbled on this. I was just wondering: why censor things that you don't like or are politically incorrect? What's the point of continuing to have this article nonexistant when it is a valid subject that people can legitimately want information about? Keeping this information off of Wikipedia, wether or not you happen to like the author, seems counter-intuitive to the Claim to Fame and motto of Wikipedia: "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" that is "of the highest possible quality". How good of quality can it be when articles are censored based on false claims and a personal quarrel with an individual? In the name of integrity, please restore this article. --StormTrooperVII 15:32, 11 March 2006 (CST)

I just found the Church of Reality web page and found it to be quite good. In the page it mentioned problems with Wikipedia and thought I would check it out. It really does not make sense that anyone should take it on themselves to sensor. PLEASE restore this article - whether you like Mark Perkell or not!!! Otherwise you are simply turning down the volume of the individual which you are debating! Refusing this content on Wikapedia is counter to the claim of what it IS!!!!!!!

Here it is, almost four months since the last comment and this page is still in deleted status. Regardless of the Widipedia's editors and moderators personal feelings towards previous individual's behavior, the fact remains that the Church of Reality is a IRS recognized "non profit" and this fact alone *requires* a Wikipedia entry.

IMHO, not having a reference to the Church of Reality and what it stands for is a disadvantage to the readers of Wikipedia and therefore contrary to Wikipedia's mission statement(s) of providing information to all readers; This must / ought to be regardless of how editors feel about theism or what roles the more established religions play in their own personal lives. I find the writings on the Cof R site to be quite inspiring and condusive to thought on why we believe what we do or in fact, maybe even the opposite, what we don't believe in, and why that is so. Do every reader a good service and reinstate the information about and the link to the Church of Reality.

Why did you delete the Church of Reality article? It's a completly valid non-profit tax-exempt orginization. This would be like someone deleting the Roman Catholic Church article. -Safreti

Since when is an encyclopedia allowed to determine what we should see? Keep censoring sites like this for petty reasons and I will be forced to stop using wikipedia. --Matthew D. Sullivan

Please unblock me!
Hi, Curps, I trust you watch my talk page and will see this. It's really kind of funny, so please read the whole thing.

It all started when I was watching the recent Church of Reality blowup on WP:DRV and was thinking of blocking User:Marcperkel but I've never actually blocked anybody since being made an admin. Rather than experiment on somebody else, I figured I'd practice on myself.

So, I made myself a new account with the user name of (you can see what's coming, can't you?) RoySmith-1. I figured I'd log in as RoySmith-1, make some minor edit, then log in again as RoySmtih and block RoySmith-1 to see how it works.

Well, before I could get to that, some friendly admin named User:Curps came along and protected me from evil impersonators by blocking User:RoySmith-1:

 * 19:31, 29 November 2005 Curps blocked "User:RoySmith-1" with an expiry time of indefinite (too similar to existing user RoySmith)

Apparently, this also triggered an auto-block of the IP address User:RoySmith-1 logged in from, namely 66.114.67.13, which is the static IP of my DSL connection:

 * 19:33, 29 November 2005, Curps blocked #61835 (expires 19:33, 30 November 2005) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "RoySmith-1". The reason given for RoySmith-1's block is: "too similar to existing user RoySmith".)

Which means I can't log in either! I assure you, I really do find this whole chain of events rather funny, but could you please unblock my IP so I can log in again? Thanks. --RoySmith 01:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, happened to see this in recent changes, so I'll just unbock you myself. Cheers,Sean|Bla ck 01:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm free, I'm free! Thanks :-)  --RoySmith 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

To test blocking, you can just block yourself, no need to create a new account. Just select "other" and enter something like "60 seconds". -- Curps 01:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

PS, under the above circumstances you could just unblock yourself, no need to wait for someone else. -- Curps 01:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your user page
Sorry, I just couldn't resist accepting your challenge. =] Peyna 03:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, points for trying. It was better than most.   --RoySmith 03:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I spent a whole 5 minutes trying to think of something clever. More time than I put into most of my edits.  I still feel empty afterwards though.  Vandalism just isn't as rewarding as actual contributing. Peyna 03:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, think of it this way, things can only improve! --RoySmith 03:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

speedying
You said "It looks like you speedied 4 or 5 items inside a single set of at/ab templates. Is that what you intended?"

To which the only reply can be: oh, good golly, no! Um. I speedied Jody Capps, and closed that AfD ... what else have I done? Thanks for bringing this to my attention! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Poor admin?
I see you are a recent admin, however, your creation of User:RoySmith-1 to me seems rather imature and poor way to test, and I personally don't feel that logging up wikipedia with your tests is useful.

Also from looking at you, you seen rather harsh with your actions, and commonly revert edits, which could be disputed, and do not bother to discuss on the talk page, personally I am unsure of your value to WP.

(above unsigned comment by User:172.202.83.40)

 * If there are any particular edits that I reverted which you think I did in error, I would be happy to discuss them with you if you care to identify yourself. Or you are free to revert my reversions if you prefer.  --RoySmith 18:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Just happened to ntice this comment. It seems pretty gutless to come in and make lame accusations with no examples as an anon. Is this anon useful to wikipedia? Also what is the evidence that Roy created that User:RoySmith-1 user page? It too was created by an anon user  David D. (Talk) 19:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK i just saw the above description of the block and static IP. Still using anon accounts to make comments as above is not helpful.  It would be really ironic if said user was an admin too. David D. (Talk) 19:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators
We were at 60% at the end of 5 days, which means that a consensus may be in the realm of possibility if the discussion period is extended, which is hardly an unheard of practices in past instances that have been similar. I recommend reopening the vote-- two days at the very least in order to make the discussion period a full week-- rather than protecting the page. 172 14:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that an error was made in the procedure. There was no error. But Wikipedia is not a legal bureaucracy. Administrators overseeing the VfD process have the discretion to extend discussion periods. IMO this instance is the right time for someone to use such discretion in order to give the other editors who have not yet had the chance to post their feedback a chance to work toward a consensus on the discussion. 172 15:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you unprotect this page since there is no harm in further discussion. Since there was neither an edit war to stop nor a request for protection on WP:RFPP, your action left me puzzled. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The discussion is closed, so protecting the page does no harm. As a practical matter, I do notice that the discussion is still going on full-force in a number of different places, so I don't think anybody is being stiffled.  If you can find some other admin to unprotect it, I won't object.  --RoySmith 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Anyway it was an easy mistake. A problem with my sig meant that I had to use jtdirl rather than fearÉireann at one stage to sign a comment, and so it may have looked like two people. It would have been dishonest to leave both there. I wouldn't dream of leaving both there. Thanks for the message. It was appreciated. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverts?
I do not understand how you can justify "reverting" my comments in the vote for deletion on Sholom Keller. If, as has been claimed, the Vfd is a discussion, then reverting such comments is akin to vandalism on your part, and an attempt to influence the voting process. Note that it is also mutually exclusive to the afd-newbie tag put in by User:Peyna. Whilst I understand your decision to "back up" an admin who was accused of doing the wrong thing (User:Splash), you doing the wrong thing as well only makes things worse.

Please can you "revert" the "reverting" that you did, to aid in the discussion process, and also remove the "newbie" tag put in by Peyna. Thanks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * What specifically prompted me to revert your "clarifications" was the comment by FluteyFlakes88. This person said Don't Delete, and you added Keep.  One had to read carefully to make sure those were two different ways of saying the same thing, not two different comments.  Your clarification actually made things more confusing.  For what it's worth, I was not "backing up another admin".  I made my revert before I even noticed that somebody else had already reverted your similar comments.

 * I have dropped a note at User talk:Michan asking that user to clarify their comment, which I think is the appropriate way to deal with unclear comments. I did not do the same with the anon commenters, because I tend to completely discount comments from anons.  If you think it would be useful, I invite you to likewise ask them to clarify their own comments.

 * As for the afd-newbie tag, I had nothing to do with that, I suggest you take that up with the user who placed it there.  --RoySmith 01:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your support even though I decided against you; it means a lot for me. I really hate these close AfDs, especially since it seems to have been a first contribution, but there will always be borderline cases. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * While the AfD for this has already been closed, I want to chime in since my name was mentioned. I added the  in order to emphasis that AfD is a discussion and not a vote.  It's not any kind of official template.  In fact, it was created a couple of days ago in response to another contentious AfD that involved Meatpuppets.  I think it was entirely appropriate given the apparrent misconception of several of the people involved in the discussion that AfD is a democratic voting process. Peyna 03:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Pyronano and Thermogentech
I just merged these two articles like you asked. I hope everything looks OK. (Stephen Day 20:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Looks fine, thanks. --RoySmith 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Lizzy_the_Eagle
Hi there. I noticed in the AFD that there was a consensus vote to merge (5/0) yet you decided to redirect. Whilst I can't recall what the content of the artice was, I was wondering if you would be able to reproduce it in to College_of_Saint_Elizabeth? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The entire content of Lizzy the Eagle was: Lizzy the Eagle is the mascot of the College of Saint Elizabeth. Lizzy is a bald eagle. The name Lizzy comes from a shortened nickname of Elizabeth.. College_of_Saint_Elizabeth already contained the text Mascot: Lizzy the Eagle, which seemed to cover things well enough.  If you think something significant got left out, then by all means, please add it. --RoySmith 02:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you a stalker?
Seems not only do you delete my articles but also articles that other people write about me. You seem determined to delete anything about me and the Church of Reality. What's up with that?--Marcperkel 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The most unfortunate of all eggs
...has seen some attention by another editor, and some cleaning by me. Would you take another look at Shirred egg and perhaps reconsider your afd vote? :) --Syrthiss 17:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Theocracy
I ran across you on the edits for Anne Hutchinson and I thought you might like to, or perhaps might know someone who would like to help me edit the Theocracy page? It's currently in a very shoddy state and I'm not quite sure how to go about editing it. Any sudjestions? I'd love to hear from you. --spazz 18:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops
I don't know why my previous entry was entilted "Theology", it was a slip of the hand I think, I really just wanted to recruit you since you seemed knowledgeable and fair. I'm currently doing a research project on Anne Hutchinson, hence my interest in theocracy, which seems to be left out of the article yet for some reason seems to play a role somewhere in her trial acording to my studies. Thanks for the help. Spazz 20:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Adolfo Carrión Jr.
Yes, one would think after 5 copyvio reverts that editor would get the message. :) Anyway, I'll keep an eye on it. Garion96 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked user
Thanks for blocking 141.154.58.89. Their behavior was really annoying. --Aude 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You people are a bunch of losers you have nothing better to do then patrol this site. Why does it bother you that I add my birthday to the list. Get a life loser

Self repairing vandals and newbies
Hi there. I saw your note in the Administrator's noticeboard, and I thought I'd write to you in your talk page about it, since its actually a pretty big deal to me with this kind of topic.

I think that we should realise that we are all newbies once. I can remember being a newbie, and really in a lot of ways I still am a newbie. Still lots of stuff I don't understand. I just found out how to e-mail a user yesterday, and I still think I did it wrong. I am sure that you can remember being a newbie too. And you can probably remember some of the experimentation that you did too. Or even if you didn't do any, you were probably accused of doing the wrong thing. I think that pretty much everyone is. I think that every newbie gets bitten at some point, in spite of WP:BITE. Is there a newbie who is not bitten? I don't know. Every one I see is. Some get bitten worse than others, and some retaliate while others quit while others actually work to try to prove themselves worthy. And of course some newbies aren't really newbies at all.

I make a point to help out what I term "newbies in distress" whenever I can. The way I figure it is that if they are doing the wrong thing and I help them out, then they might be inspired to do the right thing, while if they are being unfairly blamed for things, and I help them out then they will probably calm down and not retaliate and become good editors. I had a case with User:Fortunelounge and another with User:Peter Campbell recently which went along those lines.

I know that people generally view that WP:AGF only applies to long term users, and should be ignored with newbies, but I think that we should go the other way. Older editors really should know what they are doing and hence any "slip ups" are more likely to be deliberate, while newbies probably don't know what they are doing. Hence I think that we should go out of our way to help newbies.

I don't think that templates on users' talk pages is a good way to go at all. If you are going to accuse them of vandalism, explain why. Quote the link to where they vandalised things and explain to them why you think that it is vandalism. They are much less likely to get hostile that way. Templates often lead to confusion as well, which makes matters worse again - they might not even understand what vandalism really is. Warning someone should always be personal.

Welcome messages I guess can be a template, but ideally should be a bit personalised. I usually write to them something specific to their case, which is usually along the same lines as what I usually say. For example, someone who is accused of vandalism I will explain what vandalism is and why other editors are worried and what they can do to avoid such accusations in the future. Someone who is retaliating I will explain why it upsets people and suggest better ways to deal with things. And someone who is having trouble with AFDs I will explain how the AFD process works.

Now, that being said, not all newbies are worth it. Some of them really are no good. For example, User:Fortunelounge who I helped out, and managed to get creation of Fortune Lounge Group then turned around and started vandalising the article to put a PR spin on it where he pretended that they had never been accused of spamming anyone, and caused a lot of problems. I even wrote to an admin asking for them to be blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations. Others just aren't appreciative and become abusive anyway. But I still think its worth it.

Sometimes I also see behaviour that is so suspicious that I will ask an admin for a 2nd opinion. There was one guy I noticed who was uploading a bunch of images of underage girls in provocative poses, which I thought could be considered to be child pornography. Someone else was making subtle changes to a lot of articles without referencing anything, and one really caught my eye as it was Seigenthaler like, saying, "He once wrote a song that was interpreted by some as being a diss at G-Unit. Nothing was ever proven". De ja vu eat your heart out. I reverted that edit, but didn't send him a message about it. I think such things need a second opinion.

As for the specific case though, I would ignore it. Maybe you can send him a welcome message anyway, and maybe just casually write something about vandalism as well - not as a warning but more as an explanation so that they understand the rules. Be positive about it. If they had the sense to revert their own vandalism, they are probably going to be a good user.

Anyway, I hope that that wasn't too long. By the way, I wrote a bit about it here User:Zordrac/newbies so I don't know if you want to look at that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignore button
Hi. Do you know of a way to ban someone from editing your talk page? A certain user keeps writing me threats on my talk page and I have tried to get rid of them as I don't want them there and they keep reverting my edits. I want to block them from being able to edit my talk page. Is this possible? If there is a way, can you tell me how? Alternatively, I'd like like them to be banned. Ideally however, just to be banned from my talk page. They are basically stalking me right now. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Should I quote individual edits? Its actually a bit difficult for me because it just upsets me so much to read what he is writing. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologise
I quit Wikipedia because I was being stalked. I did not intend for them to also stalk me on your user page as well. I really feel embarassed about that, and if there was any way I could stop it, then I would. But until the stalker problem is dealt with, I can't safely use Wikipedia. I could detail all of his other behaviour, which is along this line, and its not just against me. But I'm sure you've seen it all. Why he isn't banned to begin with is beyond me. He has the mentality of deciding to prove he's not stalking by engaging in stalking. Proving he's not threatening by threatening. That's the kind of person you are dealing with there. All I want is to not have to deal with him anymore. I don't need him blocked. I just need him blocked from following me and harassing me. That's all. The fact that he followed me on to here should be enough proof for you, but if you doubt it, go and have a look at my talk page history, and then have another look at Talk: Daniel Brandt. It shouldn't be hard to figure out what's going on here. Not to mention his vandalism of the Daniel Brandt article to begin with. The guy targetted me due to his obsessive hatred of Daniel Brandt. That's about as simple as it gets. I tried to talk to him, but he just used every effort of kindness against me, and used it as fuel for his attacking me. There is really nothing more that I can do, and if nobody else is prepared to deal with him, then there is no point to me being here. That's why I haven't edited an article since December 24th, and I won't either while this abuse keeps up. He's even criticised me for trying to help out newbies and tried to get me banned for doing it, by lying about what I'm doing. I just want him gone. And if you won't do it, then fine, we're stuck with an abusive user. I for one am not going to put up with this nonsense. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 16:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Help me out with a problem user?
The problem user in question is, and the problem is that he is telling lies about me on multiple pages in Wikipedia, including this user page. This is a small summary of the lies Zordrac has been telling about me -- that I requested him to badmouth me to Daniel Brandt, as he maliciously reports that he did here, that I broke the 3RR with fifteen reverts in a 24-hour period, and that I tried to "out" him in some way that has nothing to do with "outing" as anyone else understands that term. Now he's added the accusation that I am "threatening" him. What he does not mention is that the only thing I have "threatened" him with is a Request for Arbitration against him, and he does not dare mention this because then he would have to answer why he's complaining about this when he made that exact threat to me first? He does not dare file an actual RfAr because it will show up his lies for what they are. I have no fear of an RfAr for the same reason; whether it is an RfAr by him or for him it will show him up as a despicable liar, which is why he's running from user, trying to find new allies as the old ones find out that nothing he's told them is true. So, please advise me -- how do I go about starting the RfAr against this liar, to put an end to his malicious attacks on my good name? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop making things worse for yourself. Its just not conceivable that you could have "stumbled upon this page". This is the very definition of Wikistalking. Please stop it. I have already asked you to stop your harassment, so please stop it. That includes following me around on to other people's user pages. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Are you actually, seriously trying to pretend that you have perfect freedom to go to any user's talk page and spin a tissue of malicious lies about me, but somehow it's "Wikistalking" for me to defend my own good name in all the places you're splashing mud on it? What revolting idiocy you do come up with.  As long as you keep trying to slander me behind my back, Zordrac, I'll continue to keep the record clear and show you up for the liar you are. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest both of you guys just chill out. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. If you guys want to continue this (even assuming you're not mutual sockpuppets), please take it somewhere else. If you continue this diatribe here, I'll be happy to block either or both of you for 24 hours. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Kalpana dispute
THANK YOU for finding that. I work for Cisco in the daytime :-) and even the engineers there weren't able to verify that for me. I had always thought it was 3Com, which goes to show how effective their marketing was in the early 90s.  Embarrassed I couldn't find that on my own.  Thanks again! 1001001 05:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The part that's bugging me is that the AT&T reference says, Frame switching was the first Ethernet switching technology and was introduced by Kalpana and others in 1990.  It's really got my curiosity going as to who the others were.  -- RoySmith (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dzoo-noo-qua
Your closing statement made me laugh. Thanks for the giggle. Joyous | Talk 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just doing my job :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Pell's Point
I took semi protection off since this looks like it's a problem with just one vandal. Since it's pretty clear that this is a static IP, you could easily block him for a longer period if need be. I did see one other vandal edit but that might've been a drive by. If it gets worse, use SP. Otherwise, if it's just one user, it's easier to block. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. It may be one vandal, be he seems to keep moving around from IP to IP.  We'll see what happens.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City
I'm a little puzzled as to why you deleted the clarification of this list. The things I put in there were to make the article clear as to what a cultural institution was. I think you have good judgment, so I won't put it back until we can reach a consensus on it, or at least rephrase it. Nonetheless, I think we need to specify what we mean to give proper context. Donbas 21:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just didn't see that anybody would think that the Empire State Building or Columbia University were museums or cultural institutions, so I didn't see the need to explain why they weren't there. I don't have any strong feelings about it, though, so go ahead and put them back if you disagree.  I was mostly in the article to add the new template to the bottom.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Brokeback
Hi Roy-- I responded to your message on my Talk page. --gbambino 22:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Transportation in NYC
Hello RoySmith - I notice you're a member of WikiProject New York City. Have a look at the Transportation in New York City sub article. It tells a fascinating story and it's been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week after lots of work over the last few weeks. Check it out and if you like it, please vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW We need all the votes we can get! Wv235 04:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:129.118.7.146
I looked at their edits and found that they all involving banking articles or part of them and replacing all the text with large numbers of LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL etc. I had initially presumed that he had made a couple of serious attempts at vandalism. But looking back at what he had done I discovered that it was far more serious. It wasn't one or two subtle doctorings but the effective ruining of entire articles and talk pages. The user had already been warned to stop vandalising by others. I concluded that the vandalism was of such a scale as to warrant an immediate block — I had imposed a final warning based on seeing just a couple of examples of what turned out to be a far more widespread and far more destructive form of vandalism. That was within a minute or two of analysing their full edits. However my internet link crashed and I have only been able to get on periodically since, so I was not able immediately to correct the template and have not been able to fix all his vandalism. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 18:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep on anti-vaccionist article
There is simply no basis for prematurely closing the vote. I can see where it's going, but closing it early just puts a dark cloud over it. Let it run its course, and please try to stick to policy and guidelines. --Leifern 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We can all see where it is going. We could mostly see where it was going when the AFD was made.  A lot of effort and wordage had been wasted on process (and insults) rather than content or improvement, which suits one agenda (not the unsubtle Leifern's).  Good decision.  Midgley 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

intents and purposes
Thanks, I'll remember that for next time :P --CDN99 21:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was only 3 votes to delete. One vote was by an anon that has decorated his sigs with the Name the Invisible Anon, but really is just an IP only. Agree with the speedy resolution. Kd4ttc 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * However, Leifern's not given up on that page, and has now issued what I regard as a threat of legal action on the talk page and emailed me separately to continue a conversation I have previously made it clear I do not welcome. Leifern's first contact with me was a set of threats against me over an edit, followed by this sustained attack on the page, in loose association with User:Whale.to, User:Ombudsman and User:86.10.231.219 -> .  The latter three are undoubtedly anti-vaccinationists.  Leifern is at least by association and action, although like two of those others he rejects the label, and claims that none exist.  I'd be grateful for your advice, please.  Midgley 00:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My advice is that both of you probaby need to take a wikibreak.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Israel organizations Deletion
Hi thanks for speedy deleting this article, you forgot to close it out though =)!! Mike (T C) 22:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooops, sorry about forgetting to close it out. It's done now.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Davids Island
OK? There is more info on local TV news.

http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/davids_island.htm

http://www.fcwc.org/issues/monthly/0602_activist_davids_island.htm

http://www.fcwc.org/issues/davids/080502_release.htm

24.44.77.99 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bot message
What do you want it to be, its @ user:Tawkerbot2/test1 - people keep telling me to change the message (check its history) -- Tawker 02:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to have changed since the message I saw. At this point, I would certainly have some link to wp:bot, so the poor user will have some clue what you're talking about.  Feel free to unblock it if you want; I just wanted to make sure somebody was watching.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

an rfa turning into a brawl ("which is never a good thing")
You probably remember Articles_for_deletion/Anti-vaccinationists for the outpouring of nastiness in it. I wonder if you could bear to look at Articles_for_deletion/Autism_epidemic. I ask because you did close that first one, and because there is a pattern which was established there, and is if anything worse in the current reference. I don't think it is an effective way of making an encyclopaedia. Midgley 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as you may remember, I got beaten up pretty good about that one . Surely you're not suggesting I make the same mistake twice?  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I lost sight of that re-opening, which seemed to be that someone wanted everyone to suffer a bit more, and the cost and effort to be maximised, despite agreeing that the outcome was not in doubt. Your colleagues showed balance.  It struck me as odd.  No, please don't close this one early, besides, 17:4 is nothing like where this one looks like heading.  What is the record I wonder?  No, I thought that the character of the discussion there might be taken as an isolated aberration by unconnected users if it was reviewed only by a closing admin who was not aware of a pattern or previous incidents.  Plus for some reason I thought (and I see I'm right) that you might have a view on the article and the expanding cloud of articles.  Midgley 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LightRailScreenShot.pdf
Thanks for uploading Image:LightRailScreenShot.pdf. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 12:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It was a temp file, no longer needed. I deleted it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer-I really don't know
re: Your query on 'Underconstruction' on Baby Boomer (s?) I've been trying to get back there all week just to check around as I'd a stack of edits crash on me with the new browser (Firefox) when I hit some errant HotKey combo that closed it down abruptly. That's no way to end an All-nighter edit session, but I was so disgusted and weary I needed to get some sack time. (Apologies on the Template, I'd forgotten using it. It gives me hope though that I was about done.) I was ticked.

In the iterim, this (article) matter below came up, and I had significant pressure to move it right along, thus the attempt to get other input as follows. I will make a point of visiting the boomer articles to see what I find and reconstruct what needs reconstructed--this evening, even next after deal with one other thing needing less examination, call it three hours tops-- I promise. I'll take the template out now, however. This looks unpromising! and Looks more promising, but browser or memory problem now!... trying to bounce me into my home page! D#%$#!!! So go ahead and remove, I'd better not try now. Anyone can edit under it and someone removed the temp header. I need to finish and close some stuff! Apologies for inadequate answer. I'm about done spamming any way, so one stop and I'll clean it up. Fra nkB 20:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I can't be more precise, but there were about two solid hours of editing involved, and I can't be sure what I saved and what is unsettled. The last thing I did there 'For sure' was sort out redirects in Baby boom (redirect page) to Baby Boom (film) and Baby Boom, and am certain that at least was at least 95% checked.

If I can trouble you for a little feedback
It's not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank: (Beats handling problems!) re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! Fra nkB 20:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

HTTP cookie
It was the phone number vandal, see the deleted history, you Pepsidrinka and I were all falling over each other, and of course there was the browser cache problem, so it was all very confusing, but it is deleted from the history now. Prodego talk  03:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cincinnati Stroke Scale
Hi. I'm curious why you speedied this article. Sure, it's badly written, but it doesn't appear to meet any of wp:csd, and a quick google search showed that it is real. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Hello, RoySmith. It appeared to be nonsense the first time read it, so I deleted it. That was a mistake. When it re-appeared with better formatting, I read it one more time and decided to prod instead of speedying. I went to get the proper spelling of med-stub, but you beat me to it and gave me an edit conflict. -- PFHLai 01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for fixing it. -- PFHLai 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
See Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_12 and materials linked from there. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ...but here is a true policy proposal I just found rather than an interpretation of deletion-related policy, which is currently driving the deletion trend in userboxes — Userbox_policy. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Big Duck
Interesting that this building has spawned not one but two technical terms in different fields. See my edits. Ben Finn 16:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing something once about a hot-dog stand somewhere built in the shape of a hot-dog. I guess one might say "That hot-dog is a duck" :-)  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fort Slocum
Hi Roy,

Thank you for your welcome and your very kind comments. (I am such a newbie I'm not sure if I am replying in the correct place.) This concerns my edits to the discussions of Fort Slocum & Davids' Island. Please, feel free to incorporate my comments into the article; I'm not quite sure how to do it myself, yet. I am comfortable with the standard, old-fashioned routines of scholarship & publishing but Wikipedia is a bit dizzying! I am writing a (small) book-length history of the island during its occupation by the Army, and would like eventually to spin off my discoveries into a Wikipedia article but that won't happen within at least a year or so. So along the way I am grateful for any help you or others might lend. Michael A Cavanaugh 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete Technologies
Hi Roy

Your arguments are perfectly valid as to why this article should be deleted. Indeed, I have always been a deletionist as far as pure listcruft is concerned and the article's opening statement was an attempt to combat such an accusation (although, as it has been pointed out, it is, in itself, unencylopaedic).

Thanks for the afd, anyway - I'll try harder next time ;-) Eddie.willers 18:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Python (disambiguation) revertion
Please refer to What Wikipedia is not section 3, Advertising. As you can see my modification was indeed appropriate for Wikipedia in that it was an article about a company in an objective and unbiased style. Removing it was inapropriate. Alshain01 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: three card monte
Looks like it. I would prefer you fix it since I haven't had much sucess fixing it myself thus far. Sorry about that Pilotguy (roger that) 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Anchor Cruft
Based on your participation at Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Russell, I thought you'd like to know that the AFD has been restarted and moved to Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (second nomination), where you can vote on it a second time. JianLi 17:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please see Articles_for_deletion/WPVI-TV_Anchors JianLi 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Sacks.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sacks.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct links
Hi roy - just further to your message you left me regarding adding links to an external website. How come commercial websites are linked in other areas of wikipedia without any problems? Have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas_Cup If you would rather I put a link into our dedicated America's Cup page then I will. I am sure it is a case of me getting my presentation right as we have much to contribute as an external link. Look forward to your next messages. DailySail out.

The disambiguation page Meow
Thanks for removing that link to Usenet that I added as part of my edit to Meow - by watchlisting the article, and viewing your change, I learned something. I had added it because I vaguely remembered that the MoS stated wikilinks on dab pages were appropriate if they might help the reader determine "what the article is about", (seeing as many people who come Meow might have no idea what Usenet is.) Well, my memory is worse than I thought. Turns out it says:

 * Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information.

On another note, your userpage is quite funny. I might award you some sort of humor thing, but I forget where to find the code, and I doubt you'd want it. Anyways, happy editing. Picaroon9288•talk 03:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm glad you appreciated it; thanks for the note. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My Bot
The reason that my bot removed the category was a WP:CFD ruling that the category should be deleted Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:AN-72-Farnborough2004-4.jpg
I hope you like it! Best regards -- Stahlkocher 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I love it! Thanks!  When I took the two shots, I had a vague idea that they should be stitched together, but didn't have the skill (or software) to do it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I use Autostitch. Its easy, just pick the images you want to stitch. And its free. Have a try at http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html -- Stahlkocher 09:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neat! -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy D on Carowhina
Might the Carowhina page fit Attack_page for speedy? (for that matter, if yes, might Dook university and University of New Jersey at Durham as well, 'cause I am trying to clean up our Triangle Neighborhood pages :) )  DukeEGR93 02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Don't worry, I'm sure this will end up getting deleted.  Waiting a few days for the process to run its course isn't going to kill anybody.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm new to this whole "use process to make an encyclopedia better" thing but figured this was a nice controversial place to start!  Thanks - <i style="color:blue;">Duke</i><i style="color:gray;">EGR</i><i style="color:blue;">93</i> 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Celestial Navigation link
Hi, just thought I would let you know that the link you fixed on Celestial Navigation is still broken, at least it doesn't work from here. Cheers, KenWalker | Talk 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmmm. Interesting,  It works for me.   -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Right, it works here now too, must have been a problem at this end. I guess I jumped the gun . . .  KenWalker | Talk 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

 * No problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Block on Shaw's proxy server
You put a block on 24.64.223.203 - this might be a reasonable thing to do, since it's one of Shaw's default proxy servers - but the message really should explain that this is the reason it's been blocked, and advise the user to disable proxy discovery in their browser if they want to edit.

 * I've added a note clarifying that people can create an account for themselves and get around the block that way. Please feel free to add anything to the note which you feel would be useful.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:RoySmith/Archive 2


text:
Laser Radial

The Laser Radial or ILCA 6 is a popular one-design class of small sailing dinghy, originally built by Laser Performance. It is a singlehanded boat, meaning that it is sailed by one person. The Laser Radial is a variant of the Laser Standard, with shorter mast and reduced sail area, allowing light sailors to sail in heavy winds. The International Class is recognised by World Sailing.

Olympics
The Laser Radial was chosen for singlehanded women discipline at the Summer Olympic starting with the 2008 summer games regatta in Qingdao, China.

title: Laser Radial