Talk:Divemaster

Generalising to cover other programs

While this is fine as a "place holder," much of the text appears to have been lifted from the PADI website and thus is not really applicable to anything but PADI programs..Wiki4robert&me (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

With the addition of SDI to the mix we must, I fear, come to a major decision: all through the diving section do we have subjects like "Divemaster" that we then discuss in the mos general terms and have subheadings for each agency (as time and interest permit) to talk about the specifics of that agency (combining those that are identical or almost identical would be fine too) or do we ignore agency differences and strive for the most general possible descriptors without any mention of this agency or that? The way we are headed appears to me to not be a productive one. I suggest the former, with the work that would entail in all the other certification level entries, though I might be easily persuaded to the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not difficult. We don't have any decision to make at present. Everything in the article needs to be sourceable to a reliable source, and we should remove all the verbiage that is unsourced. At present there are 3 sources given:

• "Divemaster Courses - Lessons, Training, Tips & Professional Careers - PADI Scuba Diving Training Organization". Retrieved 30 December 2011.
• "NAUI Worldwide Leadership Courses Instructor". Retrieved 30 December 2011.
• "Diving Course Syllabus - British Sub-Aqua Club". Retrieved 30 December 2011.

All that is needed is to read those sources and summarise what is contained there. That would consist of:

• the role of Divemaster in the PADI system and in the NAUI system;
• the relative level of DM in each of those two programs, and in comparison to the BSAC program;
• the pre-requisites and training required to become a DM in PADI & NAUI.

If any other relevant sources and/or topics are available, then perhaps they could be indicated here. Once all of the sources have been collected and read, then writing the text will be straightforward, as long as we avoid writing stuff that isn't properly sourced. There's no deadline so I suggest we revisit this in a week and work from what is available then. --RexxS (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NAUI Divemaster

Pointing out the differences between the way in which programs are organized so as to explain the "superior" position of the divemaster in the NAUI program is hardly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the text you added is not actually promotional, but Ckatz has something of a point about rewriting it to be more encyclopaedic in style. Unfortunately Ckatz's attempt to do so has left it unclear, so it needs reworking again so the information is unambiguous. Back to you Wiki4Thal... Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've invited Ckatz to discuss his edits here. Hopefully you'll be able to find enough common ground to form a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but I do not feel that wholesale deletions of relevant information without promulgation of new text that meets the same legitimate goal to be an acceptable practice. Wiki4Thal (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither are random and spurious accusations of "vandalism". New editor or not, that's just not appropriate. As to the content, here seem to be enough people involved now to hammer it out; my interests were solely in addressing an apparent problem. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of vandalism, what I said, after reverting, with a comment in talk, (is that not the correct procedure?) was "I'm about to call your edits vandalism." No where near the same thing.

Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia

"... Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information or entirely blanking a given page."

I apologize to you for being new at this, but despite your seniority, until we have open discussion of what I feel was your high handed action and unwelcoming attitude, I must, respectfully request that you refrain from any editing of any of my contributions. At this stage, I have no faith in your impartiality or your ability to judge the apparentness of a problem. Wiki4Thal (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(excuse the re-factoring of indents for clarity). I've raised my concerns with Ckatz, and it's possible that he may revisit this page to expand more fully on them (User talk:RexxS #Your note.

@Wiki4Thal: May I take a moment please to explain that you can't request an editor not to edit your contributions, since you agree to release them under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License which allows anybody to modify them as they choose? I guess you'll have also noticed that even mentioning the 'v-word' to an experienced editor tends to cloud their perception and derail the content debate into one of behaviour. So let's get back to the content. You contributed:

• NAUI's approach is radically different. NAUI has a core of leadership skills and knowledge that are taught in the combination of the NAUI Master Scuba Diver and NAUI Scuba Rescue Diver courses. NAUI permits divers with evidence of equivalent training and experience to participate in NAUI Divemaster training only after then they pass the NAUI Master Scuba Diver written examination with a minimum score of 75%.
• NAUI Divemaster Candidates must either have 60 logged dives prior to acceptance into the course or hold a NAUI Assistant Instructor Certificate.

And Ckatz has now altered it to:

• NAUI incorporates leadership skills and knowledge in their Master Scuba Diver and Scuba Rescue Diver courses. Candidates must either have 60 logged dives prior to acceptance into the course or hold a NAUI Assistant Instructor Certificate. Divers with evidence of equivalent training and experience are permitted to participate in NAUI Divemaster training if they pass the NAUI Master Scuba Diver written examination with a minimum score of 75%.

I'm seeing the main difference as the removal of the concept that NAUI's approach being radically different from PADI's - plus the omission of the concept of "core leadership skills and knowledge" . Would that summarise the changes? If so, can you - or perhaps Peter? - suggest another form of words that better covers the important points? My thoughts are that comparisons are odorous, so I'd rather not see NAUI contrasted with PADI, but perhaps you see that differently? Let's see if we can find something that everybody can live with, cheers, --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Raxx, note that the rewrite did not omit the concept of leadership skills and knowledge, it only dropped the term "core". --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all let me say that I find this all an abysmal and unproductive waste of everyone's time. You nicely summarized the situation, but, for some unknown reason Ckatz can't find the time to make nice.

I can personally request the moon. It Ckatz is willing to take responsibility for his part in all this then he will respect my request until the issue is discussed and resolved, if not, I (and I'd assume others) will continue to see him as a prolific editor with rather limited social skills. I understand that to enforce a request that he not edit my material I'd have make a formal charge of vandalism and have him banned ... and that's not very likely.

I'm sorry if the 'v-word' causes Ckatz fits and clouds his perception, too damn bad, it fits the wiki entry on the subject:

Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia

"... Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information or entirely blanking a given page."

But even so, I did not accuse Ckatz of vandalism, what I said, after reverting the text to my original text, and placing a comment in the talk section, was "I'm about to call your edits vandalism." Not the same think at all, but basically a shorthand for, "don't do it again!"

There are two issues here, content and behavior. In order to uncloud my perceptions of the content discussion, I need the behavior discussion resolved. I do not like the feeling of being bullied, and that is my current perception.

Especially when I simply do not see the content issue(s):

I said that, "NAUI's approach is radically different." That is the case, when someone does something in a way that no one else does, that is "radically different."

I said that, "NAUI has a core of leadership skills and knowledge that are taught in the combination of the NAUI Master Scuba Diver and NAUI Scuba Rescue Diver courses. That is the case. This also is "radically different," in that no other North American agency has "core leadership skills and knowledge" available in a non-leadership program so it is there for not only divemaster and instructor candidates, but also for plain old every day divers who just want to be as good in the water and have the same knowledge base as their instructor(s).

I said that, "NAUI permits divers with evidence of equivalent training nd experience to participate in NAUI Divemaster training only after then they pass the NAUI Master Scuba Diver written examination with a minimum score of 75%." That is the case.

I said that, "NAUI Divemaster Candidates must either have 60 logged dives prior to acceptance into the course or hold a NAUI Assistant Instructor Certificate." That is the case.

These are all true statements, and are referenced. If telling the truth is "promotional" then perhaps we should move on to duplicity of doublethink and the depauperism of newspeak.

Ckatz first deleted my entire contribution, and then, to change the focus from his behavior to one of content, proposed an alteration, without any apology. In fact, rather than apologizing, he has gone on offense. I really do not have time for these sorts of adolescent games.

His rewrite quite misses the point. In doing this NAUI is quite different, so does why Ckatz want to hide the cold fact that NAUI has chosen a different structure? What is it that he is "promoting?"

The removal of the highlighting of the main differences between NAUI and EVERYONE else (not just PADI) deprives the reader of useful information. I have no problem with anyone attempting to better word it, but I deeply resent someone riding roughshod over what should be a consensual process. Besides, not to engage in an, "Appeal to Authority," but what does Ckatz know about the details of diver training standards anyway?

We not only need wording that best serves the public, we also need behavior that does the same. Wiki4Thal (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, you're being rather unfair, complaining about my behaviour while simultaneously making accusations and insinuations about my supposed motivations - something I have not done with regard to you. I also find it rather surprising that you would make such a horrendous mistake with respect to the concept of "vandalism", given that you claim familiarity with Wikipedia's policy regarding it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the fun world of Wikipedia. In the red corner User:Ckatz, A Wikipedia Administrator of long experience, And in the blue corner, User:Wiki4Thal, an expert on underwater diving. The contestants are warming up with the time honored procedures of casting aspersions in the general direction of each other. Will we see an undisputed champion at the end of this bout, or will we just end up with two people with lessened inclination to do useful work on the project? Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? From where I stand both contestants will lose, and the longer this continues to escalate the more they will both lose, and Wikipedia will lose the most. I make these comments with the known risk that I will annoy both antagonists and they will turn on me together, but I take the chance in the hope that they will not.

Ckatz reverted Wiki4thal's good faith and generally factual edit as promotional. The wording of the edit is basically accurate, but the tone may give an impression to a third party of being slightly approving of the NAUI approach. "Promotional" is a bit judgmental in my opinion. In defence, Ckatz edits a lot of different subjects, and if Wiki4Thal's edits were less factually accurate, the wording could reasonably be construed as promotional. Perhaps a bit tactless in context, but not extreme. On the other hand, from an administrator, we expect more tact than average, not less. Leadership by example, not from authority, as traditionally Wikipedia admins do not have authority. Ok, a slight slip, maybe?

Wiki4Thal, the relative newcomer to the Wikipedia circus, responded with another emotionally loaded word, "vandalism", which was carefully phrased to not actually accuse Ckatz, but the implication was there. Now Ckatz is reacting to this assumed slur. Would these two editors have reached this stage if they were working together with live contact? I doubt it. Has the anonymity of a username contributed to the escalation? I don't know, but I wouldn't be even slightly surprised. Is there anything that can be done to defuse the situation before it gets out of hand? I don't know either, but I think it is worth a try, even if I have to bore you all to the extent that the pointlessness becomes apparent.

My hope is that by the time you get to the end of this monologue, you will have lost interest in the point scoring, and realise that the whole thing was unintentional and fuelled by misunderstanding, maybe shout at me a bit for unheard of presumption and totally misrepresenting the facts, and get on with the useful stuff you are both really more interested in. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, shouting is certainly in order... THANKS FOR THE EXCELLENT SUMMARY. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The real question is how are you going to be able to maintain the two critical items for Wikipedia, quality information provided by experts and sane organization provided by Admins? This expert is now short on enthusiasm for the project, if he leaves, the Admin "wins," and Wiki and the public both lose. Rather a perfect example of a Pyrrhic victory, no? Congratulations Ckatz, enjoy your next 80,000 edits when all you have left is crap to edit because of the disrespect that you show to the experts. ~!Wiki4Thal (talk)