User talk:Bluedogtag77

Hi Bluedogtag77,

Some of your recent edits to National Association of Underwater Instructors appear to be cut and pasted from another website. There are possible issues of copyright infringement. Can you explain this? It may be necessary to delete your contributions if this issue cannot be resolved.

Cbeers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't cite Wikipedia, use an internal link

It is not permitted to cite Wikipedia as a reference in another Wikipedia article as this can lead to circular referencing. We use internal links to our articles where useful. To link to another article use the article title with double square brackets, for example National Association of Underwater Instructors Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Peter (Southwood). I have un-sourced Wiki references and chose other articles with the information to avoid circular referencing. I have linked to other articles using the article title with double square brackets, as you've recommended. Please inform me if there is continued incorrect sourcing. I appreciate your help.

In addition, after large paragraphs that may have been copied and pasted, I sourced at end of the paragraphs to the NAUI History page, where it was received from. If this is incorrect sourcing, please assist in the correct way to do so. Would the same external source need to be referenced after each sentence?

Bluedogtag77 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Bluedogtag77 ^(talk): 12:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Wikipedia has a policy of sourcing its content to reliable sources. This requires that articles "be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'm sorry but sources such as blogs, forums and other user-generated web content, which have no reputation for accuracy are not normally acceptable. You have now made large changes for the second time, and although Peter Southwood has had the patience to sort out the problems you created with your first set of edits, I do not intend to see editors' valuable time taken up in sorting out what is acceptable in your last series of edits from what is not. I have therefore reverted your last set of edits. I suggest that if you are having difficulty in discriminating between sources that meet our standards and those that do not, you should discuss them on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, RexxS for the valuable information. Today I spent time finding citations for better accuracy. Peter Southwood recommended that I changed my citation-types. So I took that advice and added sourcing fields. Your continued advice on applicable sourcing was of value. I will note all of this, as this is my first time using the Wikipedia features. The NAUI page was lacking much info, so I used the NAUI website and its in-house archives (Sources magazine history and Skin Diving magazine) to add content for users unfamiliar with the organization. I appreciate your help. I will view your changes and take note of the process. I will no longer make edits, accordingly. Bluedogtag77 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Bluedogtag77 ([User talk:Bluedogtag77|talk]])) 12:38, 11 December 201

Hi Bluedogtag77, Your enthusiasm to expand the NAUI article is appreciated, as is your willingness to reference your edits, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we are required to provide verifiable information from reliable sources.

Primary sources, such as information provided on a company website, are only considered reliable for simple facts, such as names of personnel, addresses, products available and similar. Companies are not considered reliable sources for comparisons of quality and statements of market share etc, so if NAUI claim on there site to be better than some other organisation in any way, or to have a specified percentage of market share, their site is not a reliable source for such information, as it is often distorted to make it look more impressive even when it is not an outright lie. Comparisons must come from an independent source, with a named author, who is not in conflict of interest. Unfortunately these often do not exist, and in those cases we do not make those claims as statements of fact on Wikipedia. (A company website may be cited for a claim they make provided that the claim is clearly stated to be a claim,and not presented as a fact.)

Blogs and discussion lists are notoriously unreliable sources for anything other than simple statements of what is said on them, and that is hardly ever encyclopaedic information, and it is often volatile (it may not be there next year). When you cite such a source it is necessary to specify who wrote the information. (real identity) so the reader can judge the reliability of the source. If the person is well known in the field, this might be acceptable for some kinds of information. Another point I would like to raise, is that Wikipedia is not a place to promote an organisation. Information about their products and availability should be restricted to general information, and may never be linked in the text to a site advertising that product. When a site page is referenced as a source for the information it must be the page that actually provides the evidence. and must be referenced as a footnote type reference, which specifies that it is the commercial site, so that readers are warned.

Try not to duplicate information, and try to put the information in a relevant section, with a relevant header, and never put a reference in a header. I know this is often a convenient and logical place to do it, but apparently it messes with the software in some way. References should be at the end of the relevant paragraph in most cases, and where necessary at the end of the relevant sentence, after punctuation. Occasionally you might need to reference a specific phrase or word, but those are special cases. In all cases it should be obvious what text the reference refers to, and in all cases the reference must contain the information to support the referenced text. Wherever possible the author should be named. In cases where the author is not named, as is often the case on a company website, it is common practice to refer to the author as "Staff", which is a warning that the information may be biased.

If you are closely connected to NAUI and may be considered to have a conflict of interests, or if you are paid in any way by anyone to make edits on the NAUI article, you are required to declare this, either on the talk page of the NAUI article or on your own user page. (If you just happen to be a NAUI certified diver this would not normally be considered a conflict of interests. As it happens, I have NAUI certification myself, along with various other certifications).

Lastly, try to maintain a tone of neutrality and uninvolvement at all times. Avoid phrases and expressions used in advertising, and try to be concise, accurate and unambiguous. Do not waffle, praise, or apply spin in any way - it will be challenged if not simply reverted.

The learning curve is steep, but it is possible to pick up the conventions fairly quickly. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Peter Southwood, all good information. I have deleted sentences that sound like claims and/or product advertisements. I see your point. I will continue to look for these claims. The original NAUI Wiki has information consisting of simply "Seahunt," with a lack of historical value to the organization. So I figured it should be expanded upon.I appreciate your watching out for the page,and I will read it thoroughly again for unreliable/false claimed information. My further edits will most likely include taking out product information, and mostly try to keep reliable historical/Overview information.

• • • Bluedogtag77 ) ^(talk): 11:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problems?

Hi Bluedogtag77, I see that you have pasted or copied verbatim some fairly large blocks of text from Midwest Scuba Diving magazine. Unless you have permission to re-use this material, it probably constitutes copyright violation, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The source actually appears to be very useful, and relatively reliable, and much of the content you have taken from it would be worth keeping, bu either you must prove that it is freely licensed, compatible with CC-by-sa, or you have written permission to use it, or it is your own work, which would require you to identify yourself as the author and that you have the right to re-use it from the publishers, or it must be rewritten with sufficient difference that although we can keep the facts, the words must be our own. I intend to do what I can to save as much as I think is valuable, but I suggest you do the same, or you may get a reputation for copyright infringement, which is taken seriously on Wikipedia. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Peter (Southwood), I see now that most of the "History" section was verbatim from Midwest Scuba Diving magazine, which is interesting, because I received most of that section from other websites. However, I have used your advice and reformatted sentences and cited each sentence/graph where needed from the Midwest Scuba Diving magazine. Thank you for pointing this out,as it was more than a minor copyright infringement! I have cited and even made one reference to the magazine itself as to indicate where the information was coming from. If you see anything else of concern, please let me know. Do you see a sufficient difference in the writing, or does it still lack in change? I also deleted some information that wasn't much of value.

• • • Bluedogtag77 ) ^(talk): 11:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It would require more time than I have available to compare in detail every one of your edits, this is something you should do. Do try do be as complete as possible with your review. Many Wikipedians would simply revert your contributions as too much effort to fix, and the policies allow this, so if you think the information is worth keeping, try to rewrite it in your own words as much as you are able without changing the actual information. It is a tough call, but the article is more informative than it was and it would be nice not to lose the information. Cheers,• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It is quite possible that Midwest Scuba Diving used the same sources you used, and if you both copied the text or made the same small changes, it is possible that you often came up with identical results, there are only a limited number of ways to easily express a simple point, and we have to be aware that we may be producing the same text as someone else when we work from the same source, both trying to produce the same meaning with a slightly different arrangement of words. Do the best you can. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)