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)

I'd ask that you please stop using the "admin" reference; while I certainly am one, I have never at any point in this discussion brought it up, used it to threaten you, nor have any of my edits been presented as "official", admin-sanctioned events. Furthermore, "disrespect... to the experts"?!? Come on... --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested wording

So, having taking all of that into account, how about this form of words:

• NAUI considers Divemaster as a step in its leadership courses, between Assistant Instructor and Instructor. A prerequisite is certification as both NAUI Master Scuba Diver and NAUI Scuba Rescue Diver, which cover the core leadership skills and knowledge; although equivalent certification is acceptable in conjunction with passing the NAUI Master Scuba Diver written examination with a minimum score of 75%. NAUI prefers candidates to hold the Assistant Instructor qualification, otherwise a minimum of 60 logged open water dives demonstrating varied environment, depth and activities is required, along with waterskills equal to those of an Assistant Instructor.

I went back to the source pages and tried to construct something from how I understood what was there. Who wants to be first to suggest some changes? D: --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No ... that will not work. Divemaster is not a step, it is an alternate destination. One goes through Master Diver and Rescue and can become either a DM or an Instructor. The Instructor program covers all the DM material, but the DM program is aimed differently, at the supervision of certified divers and helping an instructor. This is a radical difference, in the other agencies DM is a required step to instructor since their Master Diver programs are ill defined cafeteria-style card recognition programs. And ... no, NAUI does not require a prerequisite of waterskills equal to those of an Assistant Instructor, NAUI requires skills and knowledge equal to the sum of a NAUI Master Diver and a NAUI Rescue Diver combined ... that is to say,all the skills and knowledge expected of a NAUI Instructor excepting those specifically relating to teaching and handling students.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 June 2012‎ (UTC)

I've put my above wording back to what it was. I assume that Wiki4Thal accidentally altered it in this edit. Thank you for your comments Wiki4Thal, but I feel I should point you to the source I worked from (NAUI's own web page on "NAUI Leadership Courses"), which says this:

NAUI Progression of Leadership Training (Leadership and Instructor Levels)

The leadership and instructor levels of certification are:

• Assistant Instructor
• Skin Diving Instructor
• Divemaster
• Instructor

So I disagree with your assertion that Divemaster is not a step in the "Progression of Leadership Training".

The Divemaster section of that page describes it as:

Another option leading to NAUI Instructor qualification.

I therefore disagree with your label of an "alternate destination" since it clearly is a step in one of the routes to Instructor.

There is nothing radically different about placing a significant amount of the knowledge and skills required for an instructor into the diver training programme. As a CMAS Instructor, you are aware that CMAS (and hence BSAC, SAA, etc.) does exactly that, and that the Dive Leader and above equivalents (or CMAS** and CMAS***) are necessary pre-requisites for Instructor qualifications. This encyclopedia is not USA-centric, but has a global reach, and I have no intention of letting our articles on scuba diving degenerate into a parochial spat between NAUI and PADI.

Now I've brought a source to the table and quoted it as supporting the wording that I've suggested. I'd be grateful if anyone proposing alternate forms of words would have the grace to similarly quote the source that supports their assertions. --RexxS (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to refute your assertion that "NAUI does not require a prerequisite of waterskills equal to those of an Assistant Instructor." This is what the NAUI site says in the Divemaster section:

Prerequisites for Entering the Course

...

• Diver Certification - The preferred minimum certification level is NAUI Assistant Instructor. Individuals not possessing the preferred certification may be accepted for training only if they meet the following criteria:
  • Certification - Certification as NAUI Master Scuba Diver and NAUI Scuba Rescue Diver or their equivalent. Divers with evidence of equivalent training and experience may be enrolled provided they pass the NAUI Master Scuba Diver written examination with a minimum score of 75%.
  • Experience - Documentation of diving experience with a minimum of 60 logged open water dives. Dives shall be varied in environment, depth and activities.
  • Waterskills - Ability equivalent to that of a NAUI Assistant Instructor. Skills from the Assistant Instructor standards shall be evaluated if the candidate is not already certified as a NAUI Assistant Instructor

That directly supports my wording and contradicts your assertion about waterskills. --RexxS (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording on NAUI's website is unfortunate since it is not strictly speaking accurate. While most agencies have a straight-line "progression" with each step being required before one can progress to the next and with Divemaster being the entry level leadership, leadership level skills and leadership level knowledge course, like the PADI description here:

To qualify for training as a PADI Open Water Scuba Instructor, you must:

Be certified as a PADI Divemaster or a PADI Assistant Instructor or be an instructor in good standing with another training organization for at least six months (check with a PADI Course Director or Contact Us for qualifying credentials.)

Note the almost absolute requirement for DM certification, avoidable only if you have progressed beyond DM in another agency.

Contrast that with NAUI:

NAUI Instructor Courses

Prerequisites For Entering The Course

Dive Certification - Be a currently certified NAUI Assistant Instructor or NAUI Divemaster; or a NAUI PREP Course graduate within the past 12 months.

There are many paths here, the most usual ones are AI or Prep course. A DM is permitted to go on to an Instructor program, but, unlike other agencies DM is not part of a required progression, nor is it even the normal progression.

This is made possible by the unique nature of the NAUI Master Diver Course., which was developed by taking the NAUI Instructor course and removing from it those items that were specific to teaching diving, managing groups of certified divers, and NAUI's organizational structure, policies and procedures.

Similarly the DM courses and Instructor courses the material now housed in the Master Diver course removed or drastically reduced.

So you are left with more of a bush than a progression. The stem of the bush is a combination of the Master Diver and Rescue class. From there you may go on to AI (if you have 20 dives), DM ((if you have 60 dives), or Instructor (if you have 50 dives). While an Instructor Preparatory Course is recommended prior to participation in an instructor program, as outlined in this University of South power point extract:

Preliminary training

NAUI Assistant Instructor, Skin Diving Instructor, or Divemaster

Final preparation

The NAUI Instructor Preparatory (PREP) Course

There is no better preparation for an ITC

Diagnostic and prescriptive

Provides coaching in skills and academics

Evaluation of personal readiness

Mandatory for non-NAUI Leaders and recommended for all

In essence the Prep Course is a mini-instructor course that tests the Master Diver and Rescue learning objectives and back-fills some of the teaching diving, managing groups of certified divers, and NAUI's organizational structure, policies and procedures topics. It also provides an entry point to NAUI for well qualified individuals who have no previous NAUI background. If you go looking for a "progression" you can find one, in factor, you can find several. But to find one, based on a copywriter at HQ's attempt (and I will point the problem out to them) to properly and clearly simply a complex but elegant system, does said system some serious violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source, I'm afraid that we will have to go with what the present source says. It frames DM in terms of progression, so I will stand by this:

• NAUI considers Divemaster as a step in its leadership courses, between Assistant Instructor and Instructor.

unless you can suggest a better wording that conveys what the website says? We all understand that DM is not the only route from AI to Instructor, but that route exists and is promoted as such on the NAUI website and that is the only source we have. Despite your reservations about the copywriter, that is NAUI's exposition of the DM - and in the absence of other reliable sources, we have no choice but to report what it says.

Again you seem to constrain your consideration to just PADI and NAUI. There is nothing unique about NAUI's Master Diver Course as all of its content is encompassed within a standard SAA or BSAC diver training programme. The text in the article should not contain the word 'radical' for precisely that reason.

Do we all agree with this:

• A prerequisite is certification as both NAUI Master Scuba Diver and NAUI Scuba Rescue Diver, which cover the core leadership skills and knowledge; although equivalent certification is acceptable in conjunction with passing the NAUI Master Scuba Diver written examination with a minimum score of 75%.

I've seen no criticism of that sentence, so may I assume it now enjoys consensus?

Do we all agree with this:

• NAUI prefers candidates to hold the Assistant Instructor qualification, ...

Again I've seen no dissent from that phrase, so may I assume it now enjoys consensus?

Are you willing to acknowledge your error in claiming that this is not accurate:

• ... otherwise a minimum of 60 logged open water dives demonstrating varied environment, depth and activities is required, along with waterskills equal to those of an Assistant Instructor.

I've quoted the website that clearly supports my wording, but have seen nothing from you to support your assertion that "no, NAUI does not require a prerequisite of waterskills equal to those of an Assistant Instructor", so I'd be grateful if you'd support it or withdraw it, so that we can see how close we are to consensus on the wording for this section of the article. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If you use your interpretation of the NAUI website you will get it wrong.

I have used to the same site to demonstrate the differences and I can not do much better or be much clearer without whole lot of retyping of the definitive material from the NAUI Standards and Procedures manual.

I suggest that we let it age as it is, I will try to get a machine readable copy of the S&P manual and other clarifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

@Wiki4Thal: Perhaps if you contact NAUI and point out the ambiguities in their website they will change it. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: that is my intent.

Actually, when writing for Wikipedia, if you don't use the website, you will get it wrong. If you want to back up your accusation that I'm interpreting the website, please do so with some evidence that carries a bit more weight than your rather flimsy say-so. Any further sources that you can bring to help the article are naturally very welcome, but in the absence of contradictory sourcing, we have to use the ones that we have. Unfortunately neither of us are reliable sources, so until the website changes, I'll stick with what we have for now. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a question of your interpretation based on your non-NAUI perspective vs. my knowledge and expertise based on 36 years as a NAUI Instructor, 30 years as a course director and being one-half of the pair who actually wrote the standards for which the proper interpretation is in dispute. It is not a matter of needing new sources, as I have shown. What you have shown is that you can create alternate interpretations based on a lack of clarity in the web site, not that the web site supports your analysis preferentially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 19:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I make no interpretation, nor analysis, and I make no claim of authority, although I could be Jim Bram as far as you know (I'm not). Read about Essjay and you'll see why we hold claims of authority in such contempt.

Let me put this as clearly as I can: my diving experience exceeds yours, but Wikipedia is not a pissing contest to win or lose. On this encyclopedia the only thing that matters is what we can report from reliable sources. You are not a reliable source, and neither am I. You have a novice perspective of Wikipedia (6 months and 180 edits), and attempt to tell an editor with over 12,000 edits (and featured content) that sources are not needed. It is a pity that you can't yet appreciate just how humorous that is. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You will note that I made no appeal to authority until the issue was settled. I'm new at wiki, you've been here longer, but don't put words in my mouth. I have never said that sources are not needed, what I said was that the only source you have cited, you have misinterpreted. I only made the appeal to authority to "break the tie" concerning what the source actually means. Whose interpretation should be given precedence? The wiki editor of 12,000 entries or the author of the document that the website purports to summarize? Talk about humorous. That and your other claims to authority. How many dives have you made? How many years have you been a National ... and just in case you wonder about my veracity, how many times have you stayed over at Nick Flemming's place out in Surrey?

Hehe, that's better. You're getting the hang of it now. Again: I make no claims of authority on Wikipedia. I've read your biography. Have you read mine? Thought not. You really don't have any idea whom you are addressing. Nevertheless, the tie-breaker can never be an appeal to authority; only other, better sources will do. For what it's worth, I misinterpreted nothing. You've offered nothing that contradicts my wording except your own unsupported opinion. Now look, you tell me you're the expert, so you know where the best published sources are. Summarise the relevant bits of them and cite them in such a way that somebody with access to that source could verify your text per WP:Verifiability. That's all we ask. Well, that and signing your talk page posts with 4 ~ <grin> Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You attempt to make condescension out of your misrepresentation, nice. What you are not getting is rather akin to your reading on a website: "10 + 10 = 100" and quoting that as a cosmic reality for base 10, with no realization that the person was using binary. Then when shown evidence from the same website that the discussion was clearly in binary, since you knew no binary, you just kept on going. Therein lies the problem, I know, so to speak, the difference between the base systems, but you're ignorant of them and hence are hell bent on denial. There was no more (I'd argue less) support for your view to be found on the NAUI site than there was for mine, so I never asked, during the discussion, for an appeal to authority. But my point, now, is that rather than taking what I wrote, and supported by reference, at face value you insisted on advancing an alternative view and are now arguing that somehow that should be given more serious consideration solely because you have more edit than I. Your starting to sound like Ckatz' evil twin brother.

Of course I read your bio, but from where I sit I fear that there is, as Dorothy Parker once observed, "... no there, there." What should I have made note of beyond your task of, "Recruit more active editors for WikiProject SCUBA." 'cause you seem to be moving in quite the opposite direction. Wiki4Thal (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Separator

We still have the situation with Ckatz to handle, I have no intention of letting it be swept under the rug. I have, in my life, run a number of volunteer organizations, and been recognized as a expert in that area (officials from NASA and North American Rockwell described one group that I assembled and facilitated as possessing the best esprit de corp that they had seen since the Mercury Seven). Ckatz appears to me to be a classic case of confusing ego and mission. I see him as badly in need of guided introspection, if not full out remediation before he pulls the same sort of crap on some other unsuspecting, but thinner skinned, and less tolerant expert. The very fact that he can not bring himself to acknowledge his social error and his insistence on trying to focus only on the content, and on my newbie misstatements (vandalism and administrator), are red flags that would make most any competent Program Manager's skin crawl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs)

Would you please give it a rest? You imply that you are "tolerant" and "thick-skinned", yet you employ a highly judgmental attitude based solely on an extremely limited series of interactions. "Confusing ego and mission"?!? Sorry, but this is classic "mountain out of a molehill" material here. It certainly won't affect my enthusiasm for the project as a whole, but I do find my interest in contributing here to be rapidly dwindling.

(edit conflict occurred here)

Make of it what you will, but based on your posts above I see no real possibility of a positive outcome from continued interaction with you. Pbsouthwood, Rexxs, thank you for your intervention and your "keep things in perspective" discussions. Best of luck. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

@Wiki4Thal: I am afraid Ckatz is on the mark here. The tiny offense of a slightly inattentive editor doing janitorial work on a subject possibly outside their specialised field, misinterpreting something, does not need to be blown up into a full-on battle of egos. You get used to that quite quickly here, it is less hassle to let it go. It wasn't intended as a personal slight. Experts are welcome, but I'm afraid, just like admins, they don't automatically get respect, even if they deserve it. Remember that you are operating under a pseudonym - no-one here knows who you are. In effect, you are your Wikipedia edit history, no more, no less. This is your choice, you can use your real identity if you choose, as I do - I find it encourages me to deal with others in a way that I am happy to have on record. Respect tends to come after one demonstrates expertise and an ability to tolerate the background noise with a degree of equanimity and tolerance. Everybody gets pissed off occasionally, everybody acts impetuously or ill advisedly occasionally, but those who learn not to take it too personally get to enjoy working here. If you expect apologies every time you find yourself offended you will be disappointed. The Wikipedia culture of anonymity is well known for reducing social skills. In this case, sweeping it under the rug is probably the appropriate thing to do. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As a general comment on Wikibehaviour, I find that telling someone what they should do is usually counterproductive in a big way. Suggesting a reasonable option is less likely to elicit a "who are you to tell me what to do?" knee jerk reaction. Of course it can still get you a "who are you to make unasked-for suggestions" response, but hey. I'm also human and stick my nose in occasionally. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing is indeed a voluntary activity, but calling the editors an organisation stretches the meaning of the word. It is more a disorganisation that nevertheless appears to produce a useful product. It is not efficient, but it is effective. Experience with real organisations with face to face people is not particularly relevant here. I think the mission is to produce a good article. well written and full of useful and accurate information, accessible to users at any level. Cheers, 07:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Something went wrong and my post of a while back did not get here, it may be irrelevent now, but here it is anyway:

Ckatz, You refuse to recognize that there are two separate issues here. One, involving changes in the content of this section is a molehill, that the divers here are quite capable of leveling themselves. The other, your behavior, is a mountain that, in the final analysis, only you can do something about. I've tried to give you some Dutch Uncle type guidance, but you're just not there, so ... having failed, I will try a different tack, modeling. You precipitated this event by deleting some text by reverting it, just leaving the note:

19:07, 3 June 2012‎ Ckatz (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,864 bytes) (-701)‎ . . (rv - promotional?)

As I understand it, this is not something that you should have done, you should have posted on the talk page something like this:

"Welcome to Wikipedia, I was reading your edit and I am concerned that someone less knowledgeable about the subject, perhaps like myself, might see it as promoting NAUI's approach rather than explaining it or contrasting it with that of the other agencies. When you have a minute could you revisit this section and see if my perceptions might have basis?"

Not only is that what you should have done, that is what I would have done.

So, I undid your RV and, in an attempt to open a conversation, posted here on the talk page:

"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."

I expected a post from you that might explain your view, but instead, you decided that you'd rather start an RV war an again RVed the text, no post in talk, just:

"20:23, 3 June 2012‎ Ckatz (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,864 bytes) (-701)‎ . . (This belongs in the Divemaster article, not here)

and

20:24, 3 June 2012‎ Ckatz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,865 bytes) (+1)‎ . . ({null}Sorry, meant the NAIU article of course) (undo)

Now, there are a bunch of good reasons why this information does not belong in the NAUI article, at least as it is structured at present, but that's neither here nor there. So I set it back to how it was once again:

"21:13, 3 June 2012‎ Wiki4Thal (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,566 bytes) (+701)‎ . . (Undid revision 495889909 by Ckatz (talk) I'm about to call your edits vandalism. Wiki4Thal (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC))"

A concept that I had first checked by looking up vandalism and finding:

Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia

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

This seemed to me a rather clear description of what had occurred with your second RV, but even so, rather than filing a formal complaint, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and only made a rather careful illusion to vandalism.

Even then, rather than taking a deep breath and explaining yourself you do a quick rewrite that misses the critical pieces, and say:

"21:25, 3 June 2012‎ Ckatz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,452 bytes) (-114)‎ . . (→‎Training: At least rework it to be closer to encyclopedic format)"

I've no problem with that, in concept, but the "At least" is snarkey, gratuitous and only serves to further antagonize.

I have RVed the article to back were it was. I am offering you the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and start again. Perhaps we can do better this time and both learn something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 08:05, 6 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Please respect our Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: this page is solely for discussion of improvements to the Divemaster article. It is not a forum for dispute resolution. You may find WP:DR may help point you in the right direction. --RexxS (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I have rewritten the section that I think was the reason for the disputed tag, with great attention to trying to keep the facts in line with the NAUI webpages, while retaining a visibly non-promotional POV and hopefully not losing any accuracy of meaning.

• @Wiki4Thal: Please check the current text and either confirm that it is accurate and retains all the nuances you feel are appropriate, or explain how it falls short of that requirement.
• @RexxS: Please check the current text, and if you are happy with it, and Wiki4Thal accepts it, you can remove the disputed tag (unless it refers to something else of course). Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I've now rewritten the section to remove the emphasis on NAUI's approach being different, as it's not clear what it is different from, and I don't have a source that makes that distinction. We have to be careful of WP:OR. I'm skating a thin line with OR by contrasting PADI's positioning of DM with NAUI's, so if you can suggest better wording there, I'd be grateful. I've also removed the sentence that talks about the high-level training in the MSD/RD quals without mentioning DM - that belongs in their article, not this one. I've restored the requirement of passing MSD with 75%, and I've inserted the preference for AI as a pre-qualification, and the need to demonstrate waterskills equivalent to AI if that cert is not held. Finally I've added the possibility of entering Instructor training via AI, as the previous text could be read to imply that DM was the only acceptable prerequisite. All of the above are directly supported by the NAUI website and cited to it. See if you find what I've written is true to the sources and maintains the NPOV that we need for a broad-based article. If you are happy with it, please feel free to remove the disputed tag. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the requirement of passing MSD with 75%, leaving it at passing, since 75% is the normal passing grade. Wiki4Thal (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I put it in because I didn't expect the general readership to know, but I don't mind leaving it out if you think it makes the text too detailed. I prefer your latest re-write as you've covered the essential information more concisely. Peter seems happy as well as he's now removed the disputed tag. --RexxS (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Divemaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120101105539/http://www.naui.org:80/leadership_courses_instructor.aspx to http://naui.org/leadership_courses_instructor.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224103046/http://www.naui.org:80/leadership_courses.aspx to http://www.naui.org/leadership_courses.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529111351/http://www.naui.org/leadership_courses_instructor.aspx to http://www.naui.org/leadership_courses_instructor.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

B-class review

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. Fairly well referenced. Some outstanding requests. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Looks OK. No obvious omissions. Y The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Structure exists and seems appropriate. Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Looks OK to me. Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Room for improvement if a few photos can be found. N The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. looks OK.Y

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Divemaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007000730/http://www.padi.com/english/common/courses/forms/pdf/10063-ver2-0.pdf to http://www.padi.com/english/common/courses/forms/pdf/10063-ver2-0.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.naui.org/leadership_courses.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://naui.org/leadership_courses_instructor.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104080007/http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/ to http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)