User talk:Devondiver
 elcome to Wikipedia Devondiver, from WP:WER
| |||
| Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and/or guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talkpage of the article. Please take a minute to view a number of quick start pages for an overview of how to work within these guidelines and more information to help you better understand the practices and procedures editors are using. These include: The Newcomers Manual and User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia.
Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance! | |||
| Policies, guidelines and peer assistance | Help and Tutorials | ||
 |
The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project. |
 |
Tutorial. Step-by-step guide on how to edit. |
 |
Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines. |
 |
How to start a page. If you want to create a new article |
 |
Style Guide. The complete guide to how articles should look. |
 |
Help. The complete help guide |
 |
Copyright. Addressing copyright concerns. |
 |
Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki. |
 |
Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance |
 |
Your user pages and your sandbox. Editing in your own "personal" space |
 |
Adoption program. Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing. |
 |
Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers. |
This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing 
or 
in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or another editor's talkpage. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.
Again, welcome! Buster Seven Talk 12:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Edits to Sidemount article
[edit]Hi Devondiver,
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for the good work at Sidemount, though it looks like you are on the steep part of the learning curve regarding Wikimarkup, citation etc. This does get easier with a bit of practice, and though the Wikipedia help pages are a bit of a labyrinth, the information is usually there.
Feel free to ask for assistance if you can't get the formatting to work. I am happy to help anyone working on diving articles, and User:RexxS is pretty good on the finer aspects of referencing, accessibility and general Wikipedia formatting and style, and is generally helpful. I find it useful to look closely at his edits and pick up a lot from them.
While I am at it, I will invite you to join WP:SCUBA if you feel so inclined, and to take a look at Portal:Underwater diving if you have not already done so.
There is also a Glossary of underwater diving terminology which is useful for definitions and short descriptions.
Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Contact by talk pages is one of the simpler aspects of Wiki procedure. Obviously you can find them, as you left me a barnstar. For ordinary communication just start a new section with a heading and type in the text underneath, ending with your signature. The easy way of signing is by typing four tildes ~~~~ which is automatically converted to the signature in your preference page, which is probably the default at present.
A slightly quicker way of starting a new section at the bottom of a talk page is to click on the "New section" tab at the top of the page.
When you reply to someone you can indent by using a colon at the start of the line. The depth of indent depends on number of colons. This helps the reader keep track. Some people indent using asterisks, but these are more properly used for lists.
Those of us who know the formatting may correct others who dont use it in the generally accepted way. This is not intended to be in any way offensive, it is just the easiest way to show someone how to do it. Of course if you dont agree you can change it back. Explaining your edits briefly in the edit summary is considered good form, particularly when changing another editor's work, as everyone can see why the change was made, and it is less likely to ruffle feathers.
You will run into unpleasant editors, drama queens and the like, but the trick is to not take them too seriously while remaining civil, and don't hesitate to get a second opinion if you are unsure of the accepted policy. Wikipedia is fairly anarchic and works because most editors agree on most things most of the time.
Diving is one of the relatively non-controversial areas of Wikipedia, and generally quite peaceful and civil, but not exactly humming with activity. (Except for DIR, which occasionally erupts between long periods of inactivity. Unfortunately there is a lot of controversy and almost no reliable sources, and the occasional bout of PADI bashing)
Another feature you will find useful is your watchlist. Any page that you want to keep an eyeon changes, just click on the star on the tab at the right of the top of the page. It will go dark blue to show you are watching the page. Then if you click on "My watchlist" you will get the page which keeps track of recent changes to anything you are watching. If you leave a message on someone's talk page , put it on your watchlist, as they may reply there (this is probably the standard procedure - reply on the same page as the initial message).
If someone challenges your edit with[citation needed] it does not necessarily mean they disagree with you on fact, though they might, but mostly it means they think that the point may be contentious or they may even just want to know where you found the information. While on that point, Rubicon Research Repository is a treasure-house of reliable references for diving physiology and medicine.
Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest or Original Research edits.
[edit]Hi Andy,
I have just looked at your userpage and see that you are Andy Davis, Presumably the same Andy Davis that you have cited in the Sidemount references.
Since you have openly identified yourself I will assume good faith (which we are supposed to do anyway) and will check that there are no conflict of interest or original research edits (I don't remember seeing any, but will check again), but the conflict of interest and original research policies are taken quite seriously here, and someone will spot it some time and may come down like a ton of bricks. Anyway, I hope to prevent any avalanche by this message.
Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have checked, and none of them appear to be controversial, so no harm done. However, to avoid hassles, it would be better to either cite an independent third party source or request someone else to make the citation. This can be done by using the article talk page, which is recommended as the "transparent" option, with no risk of anyone accusing you of sock-puppetry. If you can cite another source to back up the one already cited it will also help.
On the up-side, since you are the author of the article you have quoted, there is no problem with copyright infringement. On the down side, this could be claimed as original research if there are no alternative citations available, so could you cite some other sources to back up anything that you think might be controversial, and don't be too surprised if you get challenged by someone on something sometime. It will probably be nothing personal, so just add an independent source to cover the point.
On the matter of reliable sources: They do not have to be on-line, a printed book, journal or newspaper article, is also acceptable, but on-line is nice as it is easier to check.
Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Suggestion
[edit]Hi Andy,
A suggestion that might help when you are doing multiple edits on a page. To reduce the risk of other editors working on the page at the same time and causing edit conflicts, which are annoying at best, and can take a bit of work to sort out in some cases, you can add the template
 | This user talk page is actively undergoing a major edit for a little while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. This page was last edited at 23:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC) (7 years ago) – this estimate is cached, . Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions. |
at the top of the article. You remove it when you are done with the session and that lets other editors know that they can work again without conflicting with your work.
Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Peter - good tip Devondiver (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
External links
[edit]Hi Andy, thanks for all your good work - on Sidemount especially.
When you have the chance, would you take the time to have a look at the Wikipedia:External links page, and see if you can get a "feel" for their purpose in Wikipedia. Our very best articles rarely have any external links because they already contain just about everything that is appropriate for an encyclopedia article on a given subject. So the idea of external links is normally to cover items that cannot (usually for reasons of length or copyright) be included in the article, and these items are spelled out in the first part of that page. The only common exception is where a subject has an official website, which is often included as a courtesy link.
There is also a list of types of links which should not be made, which includes blogs and most self-published sites. I'm very aware of the difficulty in finding reliable sources for a lot of scuba-related material, but I think your site doesn't pass the test for an external link. Neither do a lot of the other links there, and I'm contemplating pruning back most of them, so I thought it best to alert you, and see if you agree with me beforehand. I'll keep this page on my watchlist, so I can see if you reply here (no need for {{talkback}}).
Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia and to WikiProject Scuba! Please do drop me a note on my talk page at any time if you need help. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Rex, Thanks for the advice. Please bear with me - first day contributing to Wiki... so very hazy about the protocols and codes etc.
- I wasn't aware of the idea of external links in that context. I was thinking purely in terms of where readers should go for more information. With regards my own article/blog as an external link - as far as I know, it's the only comprehensive run-down on sidemount from an agency-neutral perspective on the internet. I felt it was a good source, it is copyright (to me) - and I wasn't prepared to 'give' it all to Wikipedia. I hope that makes sense.
- Same is true for my 'Technical Wreck' notes - that I've external linked to the Wreck Diving page. Both the sidemount and tech wreck are works I created for the benefit of my students. No similar info exists as public source on the net, that I am aware of. I share them on the blog for educational value - and would like to share that information to a wider audience. Same is true for sharing via wikipedia - as long as I get credit for it.
- Why exactly aren't blogs and self-published sites considered reliable? There's some great info out there... and (to date) very little of that great info is referenced via wikipedia. I only happened to browse the Sidemount page because it was getting slated by sidemount instructors on a very large scuba forum.... Devondiver (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Never worry about protocols and codes! There's always somebody else who can come along and sort those out for you. You've learned a massive amount already.
- Wikipedia is defined not to be a directory. The intention is that it becomes a self-contained resource, not a collection of pointers to other resources. Either the information is relevant enough to include it, or it isn't - in which case it doesn't need to be linked.
- You probably ought to look at the CC-BY-SA licence which says that all of our contributions to Wikipedia may be re-used and modified by anybody, for any purpose whatsoever, as long as the original author is credited. If you're not happy with any part of that, then take care about what you give to Wikipedia.
- There is indeed some great info out there - and some complete garbage. So have a look at my self-published site: http://www.metropolis2.co.uk/demo/rex.htm - hehe, there's not a single true statement there. But can you answer the question, what makes your site reliable and mine not? More importantly, how can anybody else tell? In fact we have to rely on other people recognising the reliability of a source, and that normally means that the source is published either by a publisher with a reputation for fact-finding and accuracy (like British Broadcasting Corporation or Cambridge University Press), or self-published by an acknowledged expert in the field (like Stephen Hawking). Sadly, scuba topics are starved of such prestigious publishers so we have to make do. But I wanted to alert you to the fact that sooner or later somebody is going to ask "What makes that site a reliable source?". Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Andy, It may amuse you to know that on Wikipedia, Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source, for the very reasons outlined by RexxS. Also, it is refreshing to find someone who, instead of joining the slagfest, actually does something constructive about the problem. The DIR crowd whinge like hell, but do almost nothing to improve coverage.
- As far as credit goes, your contributions are permanently recorded in the history of the page for anyone to see who wants to take a look, but that is about it. Same goes for all of us, but we carry on because the project is a thing worth doing.
- Which scuba forum is it where the article is being slated? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
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) 15:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 20
[edit]Hi. When you recently edited Wreck diving, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
American Nitrox Divers International is being considered for deletion
[edit]Hi Andy, I noticed that you are a ANDI instructor and I am wondering if you would like to help out with the upgrading of American Nitrox Divers International to meet notability requirements in respect to notability guidelines for companies and organizations in order to prevent the article from being deleted. In particular, I am interested in seeing information about ANDI's corporate structure and ownership (i.e. information that is in the public domain). If you have not got time to do any writing, please consider doing some 'dot point' styles along with citations and paste this onto the Talk:American Nitrox Divers International where I can read and copy it. If you have not got any time to help out , please consider voting to keep the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nitrox Divers International. If you wish to reply, please do so here as I have added this page to my watchlist. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Devondiver. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)