Jump to content

User talk:Gene Hobbs/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Orphaned fair use image (Image:RubiconLogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:RubiconLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rubicon Foundation

  • Re "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it." and "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.", a concise description of the history of the Rubicon Foundation would be useful; please follow the guidelines in the page WP:SPAM. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you, please check the rewrite and update Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2008

Award

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
for all your tireless work in resuscitating articles by providing their life-blood - sources! RexxS (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deep diving

Good job of wikifying the article - it has needed tidy up for some time now. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There ain't no ambient pressure!

Hi Gene, I'm just back from a couple of week's diving and slowly getting back to Wiki-work :) I just noticed this dif on ICD. Incredibly there's nowhere on Wiki that explains "ambient pressure" !?! I've tried to fix this and left my comments on Talk:Isobaric_counterdiffusion - see what you think --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I am just back from Chuuk myself so I'll try to get back to work soon. Thanks again! Gene Hobbs (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

for providing that citation at AHS Centaur. I just need to pick your brain slightly further and ask what page (or pages) the information in the article can be found on in the book. -- saberwyn 00:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, nice work on the article. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice job on the additional refs to Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory. — Swpbτ • c 04:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite Book - pages parameter

Hi Gene, good to see you working hard on the references! Just a quick query about your "Oxygen Pete" ref in Oxygen toxicity.

When I look at Template:Cite book, it describes the parameter "|pages" as: This is for listing the pages relevant to the citation, not the total number of pages in the book. So should that parameter in the edit above be "|pages=291", rather than "=693"? If I read it correctly, that saves having an HTML comment, which is obviously invisible in the article page. My reading seems to agree with the second example in WP:CIT for 'cite book'.

Anyway, what do you think? Best --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS, to be honest... I don't know. To be purely correct it should probably be like the citations and references used in the AHS Centaur article. Doing this and the other references would take a complete re-write to make it really correct. I have also seen page numbers and references repeated as in, TWA Flight 800. Personally, I don't like either style much. When I click the ref number I want to go to the ref and not a "citation" that will require me looking for the right book/ paper below. I also hate the clutter from multiple references giving different page numbers but still linking to the same article. If I reference a book in a scientific publication, I give the total number of pages for the book. So, as a scientist, that's what I did here. This is the first reference I have added where I also put the hidden note for a real page number. I did that because it was so hard to find this book/ reference to start with.
BTW - I now have a copy of the 6th edition of the Davis book, best book on early diving history I have ever seen.
Feel free to change it, this was just my preference... Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I'd think it more usual to quote total number of pages (my background is Natural Sciences but that was 40 years ago!). Also, it seems to prevent you using the same 'ref name=' multiple times if it refers to different page number in the same book. These new-fangled computerised references seem to have rules all of their own, lol. I think I'll leave it alone until somebody complains. All the best --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hydrox

Thanks so much for the refs for Hydrox - I just knocked up a translation from the French article after Mion asked me to. If we're not careful, you'll have it up to GA status before it gets into mainspace :)) --RexxS (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OxTox

And speaking of GA's - the job you've done on Oxygen toxicity is wonderful, in my humble opinion. Is it time for you to list it for GA nomination now? --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Long way from what it was before I did my first late night re-write... I agree it is looking good but I really want to get one of the guys at work to review it before we do anymore. Thanks again for keeping after this! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Should we consider replacing the MOD markings with this EEG waveform? I am working on the feedback I received on this article. I also ordered the paper you requested on ICD but it might be Tuesday before they get it over to me. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
At the time I took the photo of the cylinder it was to relate to the line "Cylinders containing such mixtures must be clearly marked with that depth", so that we had at least one image on the page. It's probably not so important now, so it could go, although it is the only diving-related image on there. However, I've noticed that GA's & FA's often have a top-right image - I was considering trying the pulmonary oxygen toxicity in a rat lung pic there but wasn't sure how it would look with the Toxicology and poison box going underneath it. Maybe they could both go top, in which case we could keep the cylinder? In the Quick suggestions section on the talk page, Delldot suggested one image per section, what do you think? --RexxS (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Well... How about this image for the top right, keep your cylinder for the CNS section and cut the ARDS x-ray in the pulmonary section? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be worth trying - see how it looks? The ARDS x-ray is definitely the weakest pic on the page because it probably doesn't show anything to the average reader (it really needs an x-ray of a healthy lung next to it to point up the difference - but that's really a job for the ARDS article). --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops - just spotted your last edit. The article was criticised at GA review because of the section headers - checkout WP:HEAD where it advises against repeating the article title in section headers - seems that the MOS has a preference for keeping them as brief as possible. I've just undone your edit as it's easier to do before any more editing - but if you prefer the longer section headings, just revert my undo. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Double oops - my apologies, Gene. I undid the "Types" heading without realising I was also reverting your (correct) shortenings of the other section heads. Sorry if I caused confusion. My reading of WP:HEAD is that you now have the heading exactly how WP:MOS suggests. P.S. I do like the little O2 pic at the top now. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I never would have even looked at this if you had not said something. I think the headers were a bigger problem when I split it into so many sub-headers the first time. I am just waiting on one more person to respond. After I use Frank's suggestions, we can shoot for another GA review. Can you think of anything else? Thanks again!! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing a copy-edit now to try to conform with WP:MOS (e.g. date-linking is now deprecated) and to see if I can tighten the wording. One small point so far: what is meant by "safe extension of tolerance" in the sentence "In the years since, research on CNS toxicity has centered around methods of prevention and safe extension of tolerance"? - safe extension of exposure? finding ways of increasing tolerance? Can we re-write that to be a bit more precise? The ref listed didn't help me much in deciding. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Final point: I'd like to establish in "ROP occurs when the development of the retinal vasculature is arrested and then proceeds abnormally", how the development is arrested. If I remember correctly, it was originally thought to be due to vasoconstriction caused by high fractions of oxygen; but it never caused the later phases in experimental animals (kittens?). When aspirin was administered the full course was observed in the animals. So it seems that vasoconstriction actually lessened the damage (caused by oxygen radicals?) by restricting the flow of the super-oxygenated blood: when aspirin keeps the blood vessels open, the full damage occurs. My problem is I can't remember where I read that :( - does it ring any bells with you? If so, is it worth attempting to suggest a causal mechanism for ROP? --RexxS (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"safe extension of tolerance" is extension of exposure. That has been researched with MANY methods. I see no reason to change the wording but knock yourself out. ;) The mechanisms for Retinopathic exposure are different with children and divers. I don't have a clue about any more than I wrote in my last draft for children. Hyperbaric "must be due to an increase in the refractive power of the lens, since axial length and keratometry readings do not reveal a corneal or length basis for a myopic shift" as stated. Sorry, hit my limits before I even started trying to expand that section. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping that you meant "safe extension of exposure" as that makes more sense to me - I'm not certain you can actually extend tolerance (in the strict sense) - unless you count improving cardio-vascular performance (get fit) to increase CO2 elimination. Anyway, I found the paper I was reading about the theory of mechanism for ROP: W A Silverman who quotes an experiment by R W Fowler and D A Blake (Pediatr Res 1981; 15: 1293-302) - that was on newborn beagles (dogs, cats, same difference :D ). --RexxS (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
WOW! You are the man! I should have the other paper for you shortly (they told me it would be here today).
(outdent) Would you mind if I put the two paras you moved back into the introduction? WP:LEAD says the introduction should serve "both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic" and I was trying to get a paragraph on (1) History/background (2) Damage & its context (3) The symptoms (4) Prevention - I tried to make them as accessible and informal as I could, leaving the detail to the sub-sections. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
When have I ever minded? What did you think about the in-line refs? They seem too long at the end of that sentence and there is not enough done on any of those topics to expand them much if any? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The in-line refs are fine. If somebody dislikes a lot of refs, let them take them out! I've read WP:Scientific_citation_guidelines several times now and my view is that they expect these kind of articles to have "dense" referencing. The aim is to eventually produce an article of the best encyclopedic quality and if we are advised sometime between here and FA status that we need to trim out a few references, that's an easier job than finding new ones (well, probably not for you <g>). --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

I know I'm a bit late, but I thought I'd congratulate you - sometime last week you passed your 1,000th edit! --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! Maybe one of these days the edits useful. <g> Just expanded organs affected on the Ox Tox article. Going to work on classification next. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Great - I've been thinking about Classification as well: that paper from India used CNS, Pulmonary, Ocular, Other tissues (mainly bone necrosis in spaceflight) and CO2 narcosis. The bone necrosis doesn't look proven yet (unless you may well know better :p ) and CO2 narcosis isn't really toxicity, it's just the effect of higher ppO2 resulting in a lack of respiratory triggering in patients who have a suppressed CO2 reflex (mainly suffering from CPOD). Perhaps they should be mentioned for completeness or just left out so we concentrate on the commoner aspects? --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations in scientific articles

Thanks once more for cleaning up my usual lame attempts at referencing <g> - (here's the "but":) but shouldn't we be using the full name of journals (like "Undersea & Hyperbaric Medicine"), especially after I pointed that out to Axl on the OxTox talk page! I know it's the tool that does that, so it's No Big Deal, though --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would consider the current abbreviated method the standard (1). Especially given their own ambiguity in the article you quoted to Axl. I think it is an unresolved issue on the wiki level not the article level. If nothing else, we have maintained the same style throughout the entire article by keeping the abbreviated style. So my opinion is simply that this is a Wiki problem and not ours. Almost every article I have ever modified has this same issue. If the group that decides standards addresses their own style problems, we should address it. If they do keep policies as they are and changes are necessary, they should oversee a bot to make wiki-wide corrections. If it were a concern of mine, I would bring it up on the wiki level and not in an individual article so progress can be made toward a bot. (I would also think "&" should be "and" <g>) Not that my thoughts or opinions should matter much here though...
1. In looking over the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine page, all but four of out of the 42 featured articles have the abbreviated style (90%). --Gene Hobbs (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hehe - I copied the "&" from the Rubicon "Description", so don't blame me <g>. I can't disagree with your reasoning about wiki-wide corrections, although we are the group that decides standards (community consensus). But as I'm in the game to improve the encyclopedia, I might make this a pet project of mine, lol. To that end, I've already dropped a note to Diberri here expanding my reasoning and he's agreed!!! --RexxS (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
That's funny! Thanks! I am sure you saw I started replacing them on the O2 Tox page, I'll try to do a few more later today. Busy day in the office though so who knows when. Thanks again! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen toxicity - Reference

Hi Gene, there's a reference (no.15 at present) in Oxygen toxicity which doesn't show up properly in the References. The inline ref is: <ref name=Gersh>{{cite journal |author=Gersh, I |journal=The American journal of physiology |year=1945 |volume=140 |pages=270-277}}</ref>. I think the missing |title= parameter is the problem, but I'm not sure. If you get a chance, would you have a look at it, please? I don't recognise the ref, so I don't know if you added it originally. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for another good catch! It should be right now. I am sorry I have not had much time to help out lately. Back in full swing soon. Nice work! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Narcosis

I spent a little time re-organising the content of Nitrogen narcosis along the WP:MOSMED guidance as a draft page at User:RexxS/Narcosis (diving) and a to-do list at User talk:RexxS/Narcosis (diving) - it's just an idea of how it might be, so I haven't made a decision on what to tackle next. If you like the idea, feel free to attack the page with a hatchet and I'll join you later. I can do a similar exercise for Decompression sickness if you think it's a useful exercise - but I can already see on Narcosis that there's a load of stuff that's repeated now that it's re-organised. Those medics might be right after all! --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe - I was out at a wedding today as well - spooky! --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Legis has found a table that might be useful for the Nitrogen narcosis article, but needs the source checked (NOAA diving manual). I can see you've been busy elsewhere, but if you're able to spare the time, your input at Talk:Nitrogen narcosis#Effects of Narcosis (table) would be invaluable. Hope all's well with you and yours --RexxS (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I just replied on the talk page. The table he posted a more of a summary of Table 3.3 from the NOAA Manual rev.4. Sorry I have not been able to get to those other references yet. I have 7 sutures on my right ring finger that have made typing more than a little difficult. I am VERY ready for the splint to come off this weekend. <g> Thanks for the hard work! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In-water recompression

Gene, fantastic job of citations and illustrations on the In-water recompression article. But one thing really confuses me - the article seems to suggest treatment as standard breathing pure O2 at 30fsw and deeper. Surely breathing O2 at 2.0 ATA would almost inevitably lead to oxygen toxicity? Am I mising something? Do we need to put something in the article to clarify? --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I added my comment to article talk page. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Relative narcotic potency of krypton

Hi Gene, Steve Harris has pointed out on the nitrogen narcosis talk page that the figure for relative narcotic potency for krypton (2.5 - given in Bennett & Elliott 5th ed page 304 table 9.2.3) looks anomalous. It seems that there might be a different figure given in the 4th ed. Can you help us out at all? Any light you can shed would be much appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The fourth edition has it as 0.14 on page 176, Table 7.4. The solubility is here:
  • Weathersby PK, Homer LD (1980). "Solubility of inert gases in biological fluids and tissues: a review". Undersea Biomedical Research. 7 (4): 277–96. PMID 6262972. Retrieved 2009-03-04. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
This help? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Bah, I'm lousy at expressing what the problem is :( Thanks for trying to understand me anyway! The solubility of krypton isn't in dispute - just its relative narcotic potency. Does the fourth edition table 7.4 have a column for "Relative narcotic potency" like the fifth edition does? If it does, it should either be 2.5 (like the fifth ed) or 7.14 as is claimed here. Or does the fourth edition actually quote 0.14 "Relative narcotic potency" (i.e. the reciprocal: N2/Kr - rather than Kr/N2 which is what I was expecting). If so, how do we go about asking Peter Bennett which of the two values (7.14 vs 2.5) is accurate? Thanks again --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No, this was right. The 0.14 was listed as the "Relative narcotic potency". Bennett is out of town so I can't hit him up for info this week. Sorry, --Gene Hobbs (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nitrox study

Great work finding that study![1] I'm sick of hearing how nitrox cures all diving ills. The mind is capable of fooling itself in believing anything it wants - I think if somebody suggested that nitrox was an aphrodisiac, we'd have stories of divers having 17 kids after diving on nitrox! Hope all is well with you and yours --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There's been a few reports of higher incidence of female offspring in divers but I had not heard of nitrox as an aphrodisiac. Too funny! I am still not real happy with how that reads but I have not thought of a better method yet. The ref in the next paragraph is 404. There is an interesting article about nitrox in firefighter performance here and some evidence of a reduction in fatigue from the use of air vs trimix here. A better summary using these for background would be nice but as I said, I have not thought of how. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't see the full text of that air vs trimix study, so I don't know what fraction of helium was in the mix. However, I would have anticipated that the reduction in breathing resistance, because of the helium, might well account for the lessening of fatigue, particularly in subjects working hard - not to mention the reduction in mental fatigue from a much less narcotic mix. Maybe the Trimix (breathing gas) would be a better place to examine fatigue reduction as a result of breathing mix? Personally, I'd say that what our readers ought to be taking away from the Nitrox article is that it reduces the chance of DCS; the other info is always going to be secondary. Anyway, I've got Nitrox on my list to attempt a good re-write - I just need 25 hour days to fit it all in <grin>. Talking about time, I'm now ready to take Oxygen toxicity to WP:FAC, but I'd really like you to be involved as well, so let me know when you have a bit of slack time and we'll go for it! --RexxS (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been spending too much time on my UHMS abstracts to be much use here lately but one of the posters they accepted is entitled: "The Use of Wikipedia for Increasing Awareness About Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine." (I'll load it in the database after we present it.) I was planning to use the Oxygen toxicity article as the example in our poster. The UHMS is the same group that wrote majority of the references used in all the diving medical articles so I hope the poster will get them interested in reviewing and editing. If nothing else, I hope I can get the folks in charge of training programs to see this as an educational opportunity for their trainees (PubMed ID: 19269059). So, the meeting is a month away... --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Lifting an oxtox victim

Thanks (as ever) for being able to find the text that crystallised my own misgivings on that piece of text. Although, I may have found yet another task for you:- Talk:Oxygen toxicity#Lifting an oxtox victim. Cheers! --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Edward Luckenbach

Hi. The coordinates you added to USS Edward Luckenbach (ID-1662) — 24° 57′ 830″ N, 81° 53′ 270″ W — are wrong, but I'm not sure if you meant 24°57.830′N 81°53.270′W / 24.963833°N 81.887833°W / 24.963833; -81.887833 or 24°34′42″N 81°31′58″W / 24.57830°N 81.53270°W / 24.57830; -81.53270. Probably the former, which is north of Key West, than the latter, which is east.[2] I guess you got the coords from Shipwrecks of the Sunshine State, but the web page on Luckenbach doesn't give them.
—WWoods (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It was the first set listed in his book. Thanks for the catch! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Separating ref-text from the body of the article

I can see you're busy, but when you get a chance, take a look at User:RexxS/Sandbox#Ref body text outside of main article prose. It's not implemented yet, but the work is at Bug 18890 - it would allow refs to be defined outside of body text and named; then just use the named ref in the body, as we do now to re-use the same ref. Complete uncluttering of the prose! - with the advantage that the order in which they are defined fixes the order they appear in "References" section. I really hope this gets implemented. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NICE! That is VERY cool! Thanks for the heads up. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Carrick bend and Mark V Helmet

Hello there. Thanks for the recent additions to carrick bend. I looked through one of the references, Report in Deep Diving Tests, and could find no lanyards (or similar items) in the various lists associated with the "diving kits" or maintenance procedures described the document. Additional searches of the document for more specific related terms also turned up nothing. I assume it is Deep Diving and Submarine Operations which has the information about the knot's use for this purpose? I did find an interesting document via Google regarding Naval badges and insignia which includes (on PDF page 29) an illustration of two USN Breast Insigia for "Diving Officer" and "Master Diver" which include a carrick bend superimposed over the breastplate of a diving helmet. Given the knot's use in heraldry, it is not at all surprising to find it on such an object.

I am interested in your assessment of the strength of the Davis reference regarding the knot's actual use for securing the helmet to the breastplate. There are many cases in knotting (and of course other fields) where information has been passed down via oral or written means that turns out to be corruptions, misunderstandings, or misidentifications, but continue to be repeated indefinitely due to an "everybody knows that" echo chamber effect. For an example, see Stevedore knot. My concern is that the carrick bend may have become associated with the diving helmet via the insignia rather than the other way around...

It would be interesting to understand the basis on which the Davis work is making the claim and whether there's any other supporting material: cited sources, actual diagrams or photos of the bend in use as described, etc. My gut feeling is that somewhat odd that a bend would be used for such lanyards, rather than a hitch; but I suppose lanyards could have been loops formed from cord with ends bent together. Any additional info appreciated. Regards, --Dfred (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fun story, a friend and diving medical researcher recently found an old Mark V. As a history nut, earlier this week he asked a few of us if we knew what the lines were and what the name of the knot used for formal display and inspections. I found what the lines were and how they were used in the 1916 US Navy Diving Manual. The lines are the breastplate lanyards (for either the telephone/ lifeline or air hose) so when the helmet was not in use, the two loose lanyards would be connected so they are not lost. The 1916 manual describes their use as "The telephone cable, or life line, and the air hose are brought up under the right and left arm, respectively, and secured to the eyelets on the front of the breastplate by lanyards, rolling hitches being employed in making them fast." He also noted that in 1965, the rolling hitch was replaced with square knots.
I then suggested that we ask Bob Bornmann who had served as the head of the Navy's Deep Submergence Systems Program. Bob's reply to the group was that he "...checked with a long time friend, a Master Diver from the Washington Navy Yard Diving School and he called it the Double Carrick Bend. See below. I note that it is also called the Sailor's Breastplate Knot." Below he had linked the text from the wiki article infobox.
I then searched the Davis text and found the Sailor's Breastplate Knot. The reference to Stillson was more to support the fact that he designed that particular helmet (and I put all refs at the end unless there are more than three). Here is a photo from the display of a Mark V Standard Diving Dress at the United States Navy Experimental Diving Unit. I plan to take a better picture on my next trip down.
Thanks for the follow-up! I'll let you know if we find something else on it. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent story, thanks! I had misunderstood what the lanyards were for, I was thinking they were for connecting the helmet to the breastplate when separated but that didn't make a whole lot of sense. The picture made it very clear what was going on. Please consider uploading it (or the future improved one, if you prefer) to the Commons as it would be great for illustrating both the diving helmet article as well as an actual sighting of the decorative-style carrick bend being used "in the wild". Plus, as your associate very correctly noted (and I missed :), it gives some credence to the name "Sailor's Breastplate Knot" being associated with the carrick. --Dfred (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not take that photo so that was why I planned to take another one. Well, that and I wanted one that showed the whole diving dress. I may also get Dr. Dean to upload a photo of his Mark V after he is "happy" with the knot. If the wording was not clear to you, what should we change to make that more clear in the article? Thanks --Gene Hobbs (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, no problem. I took a swing at clarifying the text. I also removed Stillson as the designer since it didn't seem relevant to the article, though the diving helmet history section could use some work explaining the significance of the Mark V and Stillson's work. I have a basic open water certification and that "Report" was quite interesting to browse through and realize how dangerous/uncontrolled it must have been to be a diver back in those days. --Dfred (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Albert A. Bühlmann

I can see what you mean about "People notable only for one event", but AAB is inherently notable via WP:PROF, quite apart from the significance of his publications. He is notable for more than a "single event" (i.e. the algorithm).

As for the two articles Albert A. Bühlmann and Bühlmann tables, his birth & death dates, background and awards are essential to this biography of him (but not to the table article). Similarly, I would suggest that the importance and uses of the tables/algorithm (e.g. by the SAA and in PDCs) are properly part of the tables article, rather than AAB's own bio. What do you think?

I'm not bothered if you think the {{further}} should go, particularly as the article is linked in text (but hidden <grin>). Feel free to ditch it if you think it looks cleaner without. Afterthought: do you think the bio possibly could use a list of AAB's publications as a section in its own right? Keep up the great work --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with having a second article but it should actually describe the algorithm, possibly incorporating info from the EL's already provided. The name also needs to be changed to Bühlmann decompression algorithm or Bühlmann algorithm as he modeled to develop an algorithm to make tables. Ed Thalmann would shoot me for that if he was still around. I think the info on it's use is important for his article since it is what he is known for and it helps show why his work was notable. I do agree that it should be expanded in the algorithm article to include some specific examples.
I am working on bibliography lists for both Bühlmann and Behnke at the moment but was waiting until I have their CV's in hand. I was hoping it would be similar to the lists I added to Thalmann and Lambertsen The lists take time and I figured the articles were worth getting up now rather than later. (I do think I found where Behnke first separated AGE and DCS in 1932. I should have that in hand by the end of the week as well as a couple of pictures from his daughter.)
I also planned to add the bibliography lists at the UHMS meeting in a week when I present our poster on "THE USE OF WIKIPEDIA FOR INCREASING AWARENESS ABOUT UNDERSEA AND HYPERBARIC MEDICINE." Most of the hyperbaric researchers seem to think wikipedia is something different so I am showing them the research data others have done to show the accuracy of the articles compared to other traditional encyclopedias and that it presents a great educational opportunity (Giles, Johnson et al. and really Callis et al.). If all goes as planned, a few of them will apply their expertise to expanding some of these. The Office of Naval Research is already looking at how to get their researchers more involved in public access to their body of knowledge and I might get to do a workshop on that next year.
Nice job on the half-time article, I was going to do that tonight. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking exactly the same thing. The article should be Bühlmann decompression algorithm, in my very humble opinon. The short-form and the tables would redirect there. Anybody can do the move over the redirect as long as nobody else edits the redirect page you made in the meantime. Frankly, you should just go ahead and boldly do it - or I can if you're not sure - there's a little bit of tidying to do afterwards.
I've replied on my talk page on how to set up your archiving. You can play with that instead of writing Half time! --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Anthony has closed the page move request and moved the article to Bühlmann decompression algorithm. I've set up all the redirects, so we can get to work on filling out the article now. --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen toxicity

Just to let you know, I've nominated Oxygen toxicity as a featured article candidate as I have some free time at the moment. I don't know how busy you are, but any input you could make would be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I need a favour, if you can find the time. Eubulides found an error in the cites referring to Bornstein. It appears that they are derived from Chris Acott's 1999 article and Acott may have made the mistake. It's all at Talk:Oxygen toxicity#Unverified Bornstein source. He kindly sorted it out, but then asked if all the other sources could be checked. I've now verified all but 11 of them. If you get a chance, could you have a look and see if you can vouch for the accuracy of the details (journal, issue, etc.) for any of them, please? --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll look shortly, the journal name was wrong for the Bornstein ref and I requested the correct ref today. Figured you would want to read it. <g> --Gene Hobbs (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for sorting all that out, Gene. You should get together with User:Eubulides, he seems to have quite a flair for references as well. WP:Society of Referencers should be a blue-link.
Eubulides suggested this:
which looks very interesting: "The focus of this review is on toxic and protective mechanisms in hyperoxia that have been investigated in our laboratories" - It's from Duke CHMEP, so I'm guessing you know quite a bit more background than I do. If (and only if) you have the time, would you take a look at it and see if there's any good stuff to add to "Mechanisms" or "Prevention", please? --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll ask Ivan or Claude for a reprint and email it to you. Authors should be allowed to give them out since I can't download and send it to you because of copyright restrictions. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re your concerns: Well, that was my reaction, as I suppose you can tell from the discussions towards the end of WP:Featured_article_candidates/Oxygen_toxicity/archive1. To be honest, I've considered withdrawing the nomination for a couple of days now. As usual, I've preferred to compromise by trying to edit the additions into something acceptable, but there's only so far I can go. When I have an comment: The first line of the article says "Oxygen toxicity is a condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at elevated partial pressures." and so clearly the article should not be dedicated to the direct toxic effect of oxygen on cells, then I guess I'm onto a loser from the start. The kindest thing you could do would be to register an oppose at WP:Featured_article_candidates/Oxygen_toxicity/archive1 on the grounds you made at Talk:Oxygen toxicity#COPD. At least the nomination would go down with the reasons being absolutely clear. I'm going back to Nitrogen narcosis - hope to see you there. --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought about saying it there but I really do like the article as you had it a few days ago. Your ability to stick with it is amazing and I thank you!! My biggest concern is not that it should be FA now but that this never ending spiral has now moved from what I would have considered "new" to just bad. I expect it will resolve and hope it moves forward.
I've been watching your work on Narcosis and it is looking good. I'll have more time after the residents hit the OR next week so I'll try to add some then. Have you thought more about moving it to Inert gas narcosis?
Thanks again! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a scheme that involves expanding hyperoxia and hypercapnia to include all the detailed COPD stuff that's in OxTox now and then using {{seealso}} to allow me to trim out the extraneous stuff. But that's for much later. I'd really like Nitrogen narcosis to be called Narcosis (diving), since I think it's not just an effect of inert gases - but I'd settle for Inert gas narcosis as a close second. The only problem is that so many sources call it "nitrogen narcosis", even in contexts where it's clearly not just nitrogen! What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I like Narcosis (diving). I say make a few additions for other gasses and be WP:BOLD about the move.
While we're at it, do you get any of the UK Historical Diving Society Journals? I am drafting an article now but the next on my list was Val Hempleman. I need some good references though.
Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Grats on the DYK, top billing as well! The Historical Diving Society: unfortunately I don't know the folks running it, seems they are real old-time BSAC, and I don't run into them, being SAA. I never subscribed to the journal, but I can ask around. It might be worth dropping a line on Wt:WikiProject SCUBA, or to User talk:Mark.murphy, who may be possibility. I assume you've got the obituary on Val Hempleman already and the "Blackpool tables" are well documented in Lippmann & Mitchell's "Deeper into Diving". However, it turns out that Hempleman was an alumnus of the same College as me (even though the Telegraph obit spells it wrongly), so I can dig through my old College magazines to see if anything new shows up.
At WP:Featured article candidates/Oxygen toxicity/archive1 - after Eubulides chimed in to request trimming the COPD as well - I felt able to chop it all out (almost 4K) and stuff it into a new article: Effect of oxygen on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (sic). Hope you feel better about the new slimmed-down Oxygen toxicity. We'll see how long it lasts <g>. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I like the new article idea. 4k is quite a bit.
Good call on asking Mark, I'll follow up on that when I get back to that search and article. Might be a while though.
Commented on the narcosis page and going to bed... --Gene Hobbs (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated Charles Wesley Shilling, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Bruce1eetalk 08:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks! I am headed to Arlington National Cemetery next week for Willard Franklyn Searle's interment. While there, I was planning to take a photo of the Shilling and Albert R. Behnke headstones for future expansion. Thanks again! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Wesley Shilling

Updated DYK query On July 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Wesley Shilling, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Bruce1eetalk 10:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! That's pretty cool. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Need better source info for rat lung image

In the featured-article candidacy, Jappalang rightly objected that File:Pulm O2 tox histology.jpg lacks proper sourcing. Could you please fix this and/or follow up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxygen toxicity/archive1? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, Gene, because I appreciate the effort it took to get that image, but I've replaced it for the moment with a table summarising the symptoms Donald observed as reported in Part 1 of his 1947 study. Hope you think it looks ok. --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
When have I ever minded anything? :) I still want this in the public domain which is why I hit up the pathologypics site for help in that area. If nothing else, it could be a good EL if we find some. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you had a good break

... and thanks for the barnstar! Although at least half of any award I get belongs to you. Where would any of our articles be without sources?

The Teamwork Barnstar
Where would Hammerstein's words be without Rodgers' music? --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Not really much of a break, new residents in July. I do have a few more refs on my list to get in soon. Headed to Florida this weekend though. Oriskany on Friday and Mill Pond caves the rest of the weekend. ;) --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gene_Hobbs/Archive_1&oldid=326346210"