User talk:ConcernedVancouverite

This is ConcernedVancouverite's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 7 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Glad to help...

N5iln has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Wikipedia-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello ConcernedVancouverite! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Xiaomi page edits

Hey, what do you think of the proposed edit below?

Hugo Barra personal matters

I don't dispute the accuracy or the inclusion of this fact, but I think six references for one detail is kind of overkill/redundant. Can we just decide on one or two that are reliable? --Petergalt1980 (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Which do you propose? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose we use "Lee, Dave. "BBC News - Google executive Hugo Barra poached by China's Xiaomi". Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-08-30." as a source and delete the rest. --Petergalt1980 (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

--Petergalt1980 (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to duplicate this discussion on my talk page as the other editors editing the article won't be watching here. It is generally best to keep discussion of article proposed edits to the talk page for the article - where you also raised this issue and I have responded. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In several of the articles those primary links for certification are the only claims of notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would justify a notability notice, not reversion of these edits. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which have now been provided. Happy editing! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
2,193	Mary Pickford (talk)	Add sources
11	Night diving (talk)	Add sources
6	Nederlandse Onderwatersport Bond (talk)	Add sources
26	National Association of Underwater Instructors (talk)	Add sources
6	Professional Diving Instructors Corporation (talk)	Add sources
16	Anna DiMera (talk)	Add sources
4	Federación Española de Actividades Subacuáticas (talk)	Cleanup
22	Army engineer diver (talk)	Cleanup
210	Altruism in animals (talk)	Cleanup
2,686	British Columbia (talk)	Expand
2,963	Christopher Hitchens (talk)	Expand
3,467	Noam Chomsky (talk)	Expand
70	Glossary of underwater diving terminology (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
34	Mass collaboration (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1	Paladin Poetry Series (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
38	Diving certification (talk)	Merge
180	MetaTrader 4 (talk)	Merge
11	C-card (talk)	Merge
1,739	AOL (talk)	Wikify
285	Social network analysis software (talk)	Wikify
42	Russian commando frogmen (talk)	Wikify
8	Glocals.com (talk)	Orphan
2	West Athens Towers (talk)	Orphan
35	Jennifer Armentrout (talk)	Orphan
4	Association nationale des moniteurs de plongée (talk)	Stub
10	International Association of Nitrox and Technical Divers (talk)	Stub
40	American rule (attorney's fees) (talk)	Stub
67	Kathleen Zuelch (talk)	Stub
12	YMCA SCUBA Program (talk)	Stub
3	Trimix Scuba Association (talk)	Stub

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) 00:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]