User talk:Wiki4Thal

This user replaces the one I previously had: Wiki4Robert&me, which was deemed an inappropriate name because it referenced two people (my young son and I)Wiki4Thal (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Happy new year!
	we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 19:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Diver rescue in entry-level course

I'm puzzled by these edits to Diver training: [1] and [2]. Surely you can see as clearly as I can that the NAUI website offers no support for your claim that they include an element of diver rescue in the entry-level course? --RexxS (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the proper refs. I sympathise, because I'm keenly aware of the problem of knowing something, but being unable to find the source. Of course for Wikipedia, the former carries no weight; while the latter is paramount. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

External links

We have a policy on external links which determines what is suitable to be included in the external links section of an article. Moreover, Wikipedia is intended to be a self-contained reference work within the bounds of copyright. This means that the text in the body of an article will never contain a direct link to an external website. This is doubly true for a list of manufacturers, which otherwise becomes a link farm for every two-bit entrepreneur who thinks that they can use Wikipedia to promote their product. If a manufacturer is sufficiently notable, they will have a Wikipedia article and an external link to their official website is appropriate there. If you know anything about "Edge-HOG", then please sort out whether they are OEM or VAR, as they will not be both. Without a source to verify that they are one or the other, they should be deleted as unsourced. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand.

With respect to the manufacturer/VAR question: the distinction is not clear for most of the industry. EDGE/HOG is both, but then so is ScubaPro, TUSA, Aqualung, Mares, etc. The only "pure manufacturers" are some small companies that make single types of items, like Atomic with respect to regulators, and now that they have the Cobalt Computer that is questionable too. Perhaps we should eliminate the distinction? Wiki4Thal (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

((Please excuse me doing the indenting for you - it's how we make threaded discussion on talk pages)) I never was happy with drawing that distinction and (as usual) can't find proper references to support it. I'd be more than happy to see the manufacturers in a single list. I'd suggest including all the ones with Wikipedia articles (using an internal link), plus any others that look as though they could have articles (i.e. significant coverage in reliable third-party publications) per the general notability guidelines. Sorry if I'm throwing a lot of Wikipedia jargon at you, but if you can get your head around the basics, it starts to make sense. Gene will obviously be a great source of help and guidance as he finds a little more time for us here! --RexxS (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you here!

Glad to have your input around here Phil! Hope you have a happy new year! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NAUI decompression tables

Hi Wiki4Thal, It looks like you have strong NAUI connections, and may be able to help with a bit more information on NAUI decompression tables for the Decompression (diving) article. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'd love to contribute, having been in the middle of the "development" of the NAUI tables. The backstory is far more interesting than Huggie lets you know, but then he is such a stick in the mud sometimes. The problem is that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not reference-able anywhere except by naming Marshall McNaut, Paul Heinmiller, Walt Hendricks Sr., Dennis Graver, Harry Averil and myself; and I'm not sure that would fly on wiki.

It sounds interesting even if not usable, and I would be fascinated to know more, but surely there is some reference available to what models the tables actually are based on and when they were published. My impression is that the latest versions are all RGBM, but it is not clear what, if any, modifications, data fitting, and fudges were done on top of the RGBM.

It was not a question of models. Harry was a NAUI Instructor and a brilliant graphics designer (he later went to work for PADI in that capacity). Harry came up with the circular table design using the then NAVY tables. A design that is so popular now and used by everyone including NOAA (I did a circularized version of the Huggie tables for the URI Scientific Diving Program). There was some question at the time concerning to 60 for 60 and 70 for 50 schedules, which were thought, empirically, to be a little too aggressive. So, by virtually executive fiat, all the Navy no-D limits cut back one step, no model, no real though (IMHO). --Wiki4Thal (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you know when the first NAUI tables were published? I remember using them from 1986 or 1987, but I dont think they were new then. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion, but I seem to remember considering NAUI tables some time before the BSAC88 ones were available, so I suspect you're about right about the time frame - even if our recollections are not sources. I can help a little bit with sourcing the later changes from Mark Powell's "Deco for Divers" (2008) p.213 where he states "NAUI adapted the 1995 DCIEM Sports Table for use in all NAUI courses and these were used until they were replaced by RGBM based tables in 2002". Mark cites a couple of references dating from the time you're interested in:

@RexxS: Thanks, I dont have Powell, but will take your word for it. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nishy RY. 1982 DCIEM Decompression tables for compressed air diving based on Kidd-Stubbs 1971 model. DCIEM report No 82-R-42. Ontario.
• Nishy RY, Lauchner GR. 1984 Development of DCIEM 1983 decompression model for compressed air diving. DCIEM report No 44-R-44. Ontario.

As usual, Gene is likeliest to know if those reports are easily obtainable. I don't think they would answer your question about publication date, but should be quotable sources for the background to the tables, if that's any use to you. --RexxS (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@RexxS: I have Nishi and Lauchner 1984. It was useful for reference for DCIEM tables, and I have downloaded a few more DCIEM papers from RRR, which may give a bit more useful info for DCIEM tables. Nishi 1982 does not seem to be on RRR. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There were multiple, different tables, all formatted in circular form, so we have to know which "NAUI tables" are being refereed to. The first set, early 1980s, was the Navy numbers (e.g., 60 for 60) without any change. The second was Navy numbers cut back one step (e.g., 60 for 50), that came out a few years later. What happened after tha I do not know. --Wiki4Thal (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I see, Do you know of anyone at NAUI that you think would have the information and be willing to help? Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have put in a call to Harry, I'll ask him for dates and history. Any other questions for him?

Not that I can think of at this stage. If he can cite references it would be appreciated. Thanks, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There are so many great stories in diving, here's one of them (as usual, there are no references beyond, "personal communication." In 1980 Harry Averill came to work at NAUI from SeaTec. Harry developed the first square shaped circular formatted NAUI tables (they came out in 1981). This was a result of the design work that Harry had done on the then new SeaTec jacket style BC. You see, the plastic tables back then were all rectangular and fit fine in the pocket of a horse collar BC, but the pockets on the new style jackets did not fit those tables and thus Harry had been designing a square set of tables, which finally came out when he had moved to NAUI. The reduction in no-D time on the NAUI tables was, according to Harry, done by fiat by Dennis Graver a year later (1982) in response to some questions that Walt Hendricks and I had raised concerning the 50 for 70 and 60 for 60 schedules, there was no actual medical basis for the change. I hope that helps, or at least entertains. --Wiki4Thal (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

List of diving hazards and precautions

Hi Wiki4Thal, I would appreciate your input on some changes I am considering for the format and possibly name of this article. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Divemaster. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I understand that you may be new to the site, and perhaps unfamiliar with how to approach other editors. However, before making spurious and inappropriate claims of "vandalism", you should perhaps investigate the other editor first. Ckatz^chat_spy 07:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just like you (Ckatz) could assume good faith before reverting text as promotional? That information was accurate, as far as I can tell, but I agree it could be phrased more encyclopaedically. Administrators have a greater ethical obligation to lead by example. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, thus I reverted Ckatz' change, with a polite explanation as to why. Ckatz then, IMHO, showed bad faith by insisting on his change without further discussion. I find that to be impolite at best, vandalism at worst, but more likely some sort of territorial hubris. I approach others as they approach me, the error here was not mine, either in terms of correct content or proper protocol. I have no need to investigate the other editor, his actions and approach speak for themselves. As far as phrasing things, "more encyclopaedically," that is true of just about everything and assistance in improving the phrasing right is always appreciated, but wholesale deletion falls way outside of improving the phrasing.

Decompression (diving) nomination for A-class

Hi Wiki4Thal, I think Decompression (diving) is up to A-class, Please take a look when you have the time and comment on article talk page. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)