H20below

July 2014

In any case, I don't want to discourage you from editing - far from it. I do want to make sure you can edit productively within our community norms, even though that can be a steep learning curve. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Rexxs I certainly want to follow the proper channels and definitely did not intend to initiate an "edit war" (?). I had resubmitted the deletion because I thought I had to include an edit summary (which wasn't on the first one). That is why I did it the second time. I am not sure what to do at this point? Does it need to be re-instated? How does the "debate" process work about the appropriate sources? I thought the talk page had the debate already. How does it get decided on what the final outcome is? Rexxs, could you suggest a more productive way to edit the criticism and maybe kindly take the lead on that section? I just didn't see anything happening with it and there seemed to be no objections.

Thanks again, and yes this is a steep learning curve!

Hi Rexxs, Thanks for adding the comments on the criticism talk page! Thanks for taking the lead on that! 02:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's ok to reply here. When I leave a message on someone's talk page, I make sure the box "Watch this page" below the edit summary is ticked before I save. The talk page will then be on my watchlist until I remove it, so I'll see when you reply here. Most experienced editors will do the same. The result of a debate is decided usually by consensus (read WP:CON) - we should all go into a discussion with an open mind and with the intention of finding a result that everyone can live with (even if it's not our first choice!). I see that Ian.thomson has added some sourced content back into the Criticism section and you've added some more content and sources to another section. I'd suggest you have a look at Ian's contribution and make any comments you may have on the talk page - perhaps suggest any changes of wording or additional sources there and start a debate if you think it can be improved upon. This is how it works on Wikipedia - a mixture of bold edits (which sometimes get reverted) and collegial debate on how to improve the article (or at least that's how it's supposed to work!). If you get stuck, you're welcome to ping me (link my username in a debate) or drop me a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi RexxS, Thanks for the guidance. This is quite a process. I took a look at the criticism, I agree with your suggestion that "Put Another Dollar In" is anecdotal, but I feel like I am already a flagged user in some way and tagged as "COI"...so I am afraid to delete. Is that something you would want to do?

Thanks! H20below (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Caution is an admirable quality in a Wikipedian, albeit a rare one. I've replied at Talk:Professional Association of Diving Instructors #Criticism section removal. Anyway my suggestion is have a look at Category:Underwater diving, for example, and see if there are any scuba articles you might like to try to improve (remember sources are essential) that you clearly have no affiliation with. That way, you build a reputation for yourself as an editor in the topic area, not just one article. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi RexxS,

I saw your reply on the PADI Talk page. Thanks! I will give it a shot on some of the other scuba articles and see how it goes. Thank you again for the suggestions.

H20below (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)