User talk:Krj373/pg2

Do Not Post Here this is an archived page
Please post any & all messages on my main page located
Here

This is a subpage of Krj373's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This is the Talk page for both Krj373 & Krj373-NR. If you wish to leave a message for either user please post it here.

Talk Pages

Current Page

User_talk:Krj373

Oldest ➠ youngest

Purge link

This is a Purge link for the page you are currently on. There is no reason to click it unless something looks out of date. An example would be if I did some archiving and the list of pervious pages is not yet updated on the current page.

Oxygen toxicity

"If it was 100% oxygen. It wouldn't be nitrox would it. 100% means pure oxygen" - so what does "up to 100% oxygen" mean? --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed that article to say that it was a gas that contained more than 21% oxygen and the remainder consisting of nitrogen. The IP address guy changed to the 100% oxygen thing again. My big theory is really it is a gas just consisting of Oxygen & nitrogen. Look forward to your response.

Thanks for pointing it out any how.

Krj373 (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I hope you don't mind me copying across your comment from my talk page to keep discussion together. It is difficult to find a good form of words to describe nitrox in the lead of Oxygen toxicity as it's not the main point of the article. However, I did choose my words carefully, since nitrox is not limited to hyperoxic mixes.[1] EAN is indeed defined as that, but nitrox is what is discussed in the body of the article, so "over 21% oxygen" is simply inaccurate. Since the point that I wanted to make was that very high FO2 may be carried by scuba divers in nitrox-labelled, oxygen-clean cylinders, I used the formulation "up to 100% oxygen", rather than the technically accurate, but unnecessarily pedantic "up to, but not including 100% oxygen"; there is no value in mentioning nitrogen in the lead of an article about oxygen toxicity. The IP came up with the nonsense about "up to 36%" and "oxygen toxicity is nearly impossible". I've now restored the original text, but would be happy to discuss better wording if you can find any. --RexxS (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrox

Bah, I ec'd with your archiving - but I've typed it now, so here goes;

I expect that they were a PADI diver; I'm a PADI instructor, and we teach using a table that calculates O pp in the range of 32% to 36%, hence they might consider that to be 'Nitrox'. As far as the PADI course goes, 'enriched air' is always within that range. The term itself isn't great; 'enriched air' seems better but Nitrox is quick and easy to say; a diver would consider anything above 21% to be 'nitrox' (ie enriched); if it was <21% it would not be enriched, thus we wouldn't use the term Nitrox. We'd never have that anyway, as it's produced by adding O to air, so we wouldn't be able to make a <21% mix. Anything over 40% is not covered by PADI. I'm not disagreeing with anything, just trying to give the diver perspective, being as I stumbled across this thread. Chzz ► 22:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User causing trouble

{{helpme}} 72.197.192.182

This IP user has made a lot of posts which I believe are all just an attempt to vandalize could somebody flag his account as I don't know how. I deleted the stuff he posted on the talk page for Combustibility. However I don't know what the correct proceder is.

Thanks for any help

Krj373 (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the user's contribs page, they've only made one vandalism edit recently (in early 2009). This does not call for blocking yet, and instead you could warn the user with {{uw-vandalism2}}. If they come back and continue to vandalize, continue with the "uw-vandalism3" and "vandalism4" templates. If the user has received a few warnings, including the 4th warning, and they continue to vandalize, you can report them to WP:AIV, where they will most likely be issued a 24hr or 48hr block if this is the first time. That's the general pattern when dealing with editors who are making unconstructive or vandalistic edits. For the time being, you can just leave them a warning notice with the template I mentioned above, and watch their contributions. Best, JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 22:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]