User talk:Robert Mini B Hart

Robert Mini B Hart, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a source of information that stated facts and that it was not supposed to show bias.

I have repeatedly tried to write down information that is factual, each time having it removed, the latest time because the training agency in question does not come under established bodies names such as WRSTC which is completely irreverent as it has no LEGAL status as a body as there are no laws in statute related to scuba diving, it is completely self policed.

Does the person who cancelled the information believe that scuba training agencies are only genuine if they come under the WRSTC banner? if so they are completely wrong. To be a scuba training agency you must be approved by the government which controls the country you are registered in.

Microdive was formed in 2003 Microdive is a fully approved scuba certification agency and fully approved by the UK government Microdive appears on the UK governments list of approved scuba training agencies. Microdive provide consumers with a 5 and 9 mtr scuba certification courses and is the only agency in the world to offer them Microdive is the only agency to allow other agencies instructors to teach its courses.

The bottom line here is that if you contact the UK governments Health and safety executive, the only body that actually means anything here they will confirm the above 5 points.

Can someone please tell me why Microdives 5 and 9 mtr courses can not be listed on Wikipedia if the UK government has sanctioned them as being valid and fully approved?

Please let me know why this is or how I am supposed to list the information so that it meets Wikipedia standards?

THank you. R Hart.

Wikipedia does its best to provide encyclopedic information without bias. However the way that it does this is by only reporting information that has been published by independent, third-party reliable sources. Anybody can form a company and claim to certify scuba divers, as the UK HSA does not regulate diving per se, but only the activities of people who work in the field of diving. Diving at Work Regulations, for example, only apply to professional divers, not to companies who sell certifications. So how is Wikipedia to determine who is to be included? Should we list "Joe's Dive Shack" who has created a 3 metre dive course - do we have to take Joe's word for it? The answer is that we rely on other people who publish information related to the subject. If we find that nobody else has written anything about "Joe's Dive Shack's 3 metre course", then we're going to be very suspicious about whether it really is an encyclopedic topic. If an agency is recognised in general, then why isn't it a member of one of the major world-wide federations that provide standards for certifications? Check out the way that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) sets minimum standards for diving courses - it relies on the US RSTC. Now tell me how the UK HSA sets standards for diving courses in the UK. It simply lists companies that they see as qualifying a diver as a supervisor. That bears no relationship to regulating legal standards for recreational dive courses - as RSTC does in the USA. So I'm not impressed with the ignorance displayed by your "has no LEGAL status as a body as there are no laws in statute related to scuba diving, it is completely self policed" comment. I can assure you that if you ever dive outside the UK, you'll find lots of "laws in statute relating to scuba diving" in many different countries. This isn't the British Wikipedia.

So how about it, Robert? Why not find some sources that mention your courses so that our readers can tell the difference between you and Joe? It's not impossible and I've found a couple to start you off:

I'm assuming that the Andark 3 metre course is yours as well. Why not have a read of those - and any others you can find - and see what can be supported by third-party sources? I can see a relationship in at least one source to Snuba, http://www.snubatoday.com/page3.htm by a dive shop in Malta; do these fit together? or should the Mini-B be seen as a competitor to Snuba for the basic entry market?

Now, I've given you a start, but I'm not going to do all the work for you. And I'm not giving you a green-light to go ahead and simply re-introduce your promotional material again without discussion - we're not just going to take your word for it. Take the time to do your research and bring some decent sources for the content you're trying to introduce. Each article has a talk page - you can use those to discuss the content you want to add and the sources that support it. --RexxS (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert Mini B Hart! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I highly suggest that you avail yourself of the above opportunity. I see that most (all?) of your edits have been to promote a specific commercial product, which is contrary to the Editor's role in Wikipedia, which is why several editors have now subsequently deleted your work ... and they will be obligated to do so again, if you continue to fail to follow the guidelines. Otherwise, welcome onboard to Wikipedia! -hh (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, As you will have noticed, you have an apparent conflict of interest in editing any article with information on the Mini-B or Microdive. A recommended way of avoiding this problem is to add information you feel is relevant to the article on the talk page, complete with adequate references, and leave it to editors who are not associated with the Mini-B or Microdive to assess the suggested additions, and to advise you on what is needed to make them acceptable, and when this has been achieved to the satisfaction of the participants, one of them will make the relevant edits. This does not guarantee that the edits will be as you want them to be, as promotional edits will not be accepted, but reliably verifiable information can be added in this way without you risking being blocked and your edits reverted.

I also recommend you take up the invitation to the Teahouse, It may be a relatively painless method of learning how to fit in with the locals. There you will find people who want to help you fit in and have the time and inclination to do so. Out in the wilds, you will run into a lot of people with neither the time, the ability or the desire to assist new editors, often because they are too busy doing what is important to themselves on Wikipedia, but sometimes also because they are not very sociable or tolerant of new editors who do not know the customs yet.

Try editing articles totally unconnected with your financial interests until you are more familiar with the waters. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would also improve your chances of having your edits accepted if you would cite your references in such a way that they are possible to check and verify without undue effort. Ensure that the urls work and take the reader to the page or document which provides the relevant information. When referencing a multi-page document, try to specify the page number, and above all, ensure that the referenced document does actually support the claim you make. Wikipedians are generally not prepared to research your edits, that is your responsibility. If one of your sources is defective your credibility takes a dive, if two are defective in a row, expect all your edits to be reverted without further ado, particularly if the reviewer is not a subject matter expert, or if the claims are contentious or obscure. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an exercise, try showing that the HSE approves the 5 and 9m certifications specifically. The reference should mention the courses by name or specifically state that all courses by Microdive are approved. Name the document, if relevant the authors, ISBN, publication, volume, edition, editors, publishers, date, page numbers, and url if available online. There are specific formats recommended for citation using templates, but if you just gather all the relevant information together, it will suffice, as someone else can format it correctly until you learn to do that yourself. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have this page on my watchlist, so if you respond here I will be notified. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to List of English inventors. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert Mini B Hart. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Recreational diving, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Deep diving. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microdive is not a certifying agency recognised by either of the usual sources - CMAS] and WRSTC. You continue to add claims but are giving sources that are dead links such as html:/www.hse.gov.uk/diving/qualifications/approved - so please click on any links you give in future to ensure that they actually take the reader to the webpage intended. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Robert Mini B Hart", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Mini B is the name of your company: http://www.mini-b.com/scuba/ and that site features the product you've been advertising on Wikipedia.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]