User talk:ConcernedVancouverite/Archive 5
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why are undoing my edit on the basis of that they may be 'original research'?
Hi ConcernedVancouverite, You undid a number of my recent edits. I have reversed these as I do not agree with your argument. Specifically, content regarding EUF Certification is information ready available on the European Underwater Federation website. The exercise of editing articles for ANDI, PADI and SSI is asssociated with a collaborative activity to improve the List of diver certification organizations article. You are more than welcome to look at the Talk page for this article to see the discussion where I undertook to do the editing of the articles where existing for those organisations certified by the EUF.Cowdy001 (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Certifications are only notable if they are mentioned in third party reliable sources. Going to a certification body and adding that information to the article is original research unless it is reported in a third party independent source. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please cite your source for this claim. There is a difference between a primary source and original research. Primary sources are admissable for some classes of information.
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
- • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- In several of the articles those primary links for certification are the only claims of notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- That would justify a notability notice, not reversion of these edits. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which have now been provided. Happy editing! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- You have not yet addressed the matter of reverting the edits which contained basic information that certifications were issued from a primary source which is the certifying agency. Do you maintain that this information is not admissible, although on first appearance it seems to be, or do you dispute the veracity of the information, or is there another reason? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I simply question the notability of the claim, and the benefit to having it added to the article, if it is not mentioned anywhere but on a certification database. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- How do you know that (if) it is not mentioned anywhere but on a "certification database", (and why would you call the website of EUF a certification database?)
- If you question the notability of a claim, why not do so by tagging it, rather than arbitrarily reverting with the claim that it is not notable because of the provenance?
- Where is it stipulated that all information in an article must be notable? What criteria are applicable to notability of information regarding organizations? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- The link appears to just be to a listing in a centralized listing/database of certifications. Adding random information about an organization that is not reported by third parties frequently is overly detailed and lends the appearance of notability when it is a non-notable claim. That is why I have referred to it as such. In terms of why I removed it originally, that is part of WP:BOLD. You opposed the removal and I have not re-removed it - instead I tagged the articles as you preferred. Happy editing! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, It appears you do not have a strong argument for removing it and I assume you will not have a strong objection to me reverting those deletions as in my opinion they are relevant and sufficiently notable to be worth mention, as they provide a distinction between a group of diver certification agencies which are recognized by an international quality control organisation and others which may not have any external quality assurance audit, or are audited by a different organisation. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- The link appears to just be to a listing in a centralized listing/database of certifications. Adding random information about an organization that is not reported by third parties frequently is overly detailed and lends the appearance of notability when it is a non-notable claim. That is why I have referred to it as such. In terms of why I removed it originally, that is part of WP:BOLD. You opposed the removal and I have not re-removed it - instead I tagged the articles as you preferred. Happy editing! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I simply question the notability of the claim, and the benefit to having it added to the article, if it is not mentioned anywhere but on a certification database. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- You have not yet addressed the matter of reverting the edits which contained basic information that certifications were issued from a primary source which is the certifying agency. Do you maintain that this information is not admissible, although on first appearance it seems to be, or do you dispute the veracity of the information, or is there another reason? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which have now been provided. Happy editing! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- That would justify a notability notice, not reversion of these edits. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (All the copyright content has been removed and only reliable sources of wikipedia has been provoded,its an important article with so many relaible sources ,provided for that).. first see the article contents and discuss on talk page . dont delete it directly ,prsuming that it will be promotional again. just see the article first.--Nitishkumartn (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article still contains numerous WP:PEACOCK phrasings, citations to promotional press releases, etc. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, pleaseconsult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Gone?
Hi! You don't know me (I don't believe we've ever interacted before) but I was pursuing some NPP issues and came across your name in a previous deletion of an article I was looking at. Coming to your talk page, I find that you haven't been active since last October (which, given your level of activity before that, is unexpected). I hope you haven't given up on Wikipedia. We need all the help we can get keeping this the valuable information resource that we all think it should be. Come on back! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Your editing decisions have gotten unwanted attention. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
You haven't been here in a while, probably because the service is so lousy. Here's a beer--happy trails, and thanks for your service. Come back anytime--I think WikiDan61 agrees. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2015 (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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
New deal for page patrollers
Hi ConcernedVancouverite,
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
New 10,000 Challenge for Canada
Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
- Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
- Editor-focused central editing dashboard
- "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
- Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
- Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list
Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
June 12, 2019 edit-a-thon at "Atla Annual 2019" in Vancouver British Columbia
| 1000 Women in Religion: A Wikipedia edit-a-thon at "Atla Annual 2019" in Vancouver, British Columbia | |
|---|---|
 The 1000 Women in Religion Project is working to improve the coverage of women’s contributions to religious, spiritual and wisdom traditions worldwide. In support of this goal, the edit-a-thon at Atla's (formerly the American Theological Library Association) annual meeting will focus on improving articles about women in religion. We would love to have a few Vancouver area Wikipedians to help us get new editors oriented and editing!! Wednesday, June 12, 2019
8:00am-12:00pm Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre 1088 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2R9 Canada
| |
Dzingle1 (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Dzingle1 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)