User talk:HowieKor

Welcome HowieKor! Are you the author of the work you cited in the Solo diving article or do you know the author? I would like to review the manuscript. Thanks, --Gene Hobbs (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found the paper online and linked in article. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:JMS in Garden.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JMS in Garden.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for File:JMS in Office2.jpg. If you need help with this, please get in touch with me. I will gladly help. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, HowieKor. You have new messages at Visionholder's talk page.
Message added 19:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graph on Pony bottle

Hi Howiekor, Your graph on gas usage for various decompression schedules following a dive to 40m shows different gas consumptions at 10m, but the text in the caption suggests that the depth with varied stop times is 5m, which seems more likely. Also the graph indicates a pressure of 232 bar for the 6l cylinder, which is pretty standard, so I assume it is right, but the caption states 234 bar, which I guess is a typo. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply re: Graph

Hi Peter

Your right Peter, I got the Labels backwards- it's 10 metre consumption that's constant. I'm removing graph to sort out and will replace it with corrected and updated version. Thanks for the quality editing job!!

Howie

Buddy diving - new sections

Hi Howiekor, You have added two new level two headers/sections in Buddy diving, namely "Liablity and Buddy Diving", and "Dependant Buddies". Should these not more properly be level three headers/subsections under the level two header/section "Controversy and the buddy system"? Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... you have a good point there Peter, although I hadn't thought of the two topics as TOTALLY controversial, just a discussion of how things are... but on reflection yours is the better way. I'll restructure the new entries.

Cheers --HowieKor (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:DecompressionPrepEdit.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:DecompressionPrepEdit.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana or Dinah Halstead?

Hi HowieKor, You refer to Diana Halstead in the Bob Halstead article, but one of the references refers to Dinah. Is this a typo or are they two different people? Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaargh.....it was my spelling mistake Peter, not my sources. I've sorted out the page now. Thanks once again for that accurate reading eye of yours....--HowieKor (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling, I am really bad with typos due to poor typing skills and wonky vision. I seem to leave a trail of them everywhere I edit. It happens. I live with it, other people correct them, and I pass on the courtesy. One of the joys of Wikiediting Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table prototype on Talk:Doing It Right

Hi Howie, I have put together a proposed table format for dealing with DIR controversies on the talk page. As you were planning to do something similar, I would appreciate your input, possibly optimise/stabilise the format before grafting it into the article Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter

I've already had a go at this in the article text itself. It's a bit of a work in progress at the moment. I've used a table approach a couple of times there, but no "exact standard way" of doing it has come to mind that can encompass ALL aspects of criticism.... because there seems so many implications of the DIR system to cover. Where I've used tables, I do mirror the approach I took earlier in the article - situation them implication. BTW -I think you've done an absoluty superb job of both representing and consolidating the subject matter. The Doing it Wrong section seems to need some real consolidation. Dare I mention a table? --HowieKor (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on your request

Hi Howie, I have done this on my talk page after all. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adjunction request

Adjunction request -to Gene Hobbs

Rexx has suggested (and I concur) that I ask you to adjudicate a somewhat heated controversy over a subsection of the Doing It Right article, where I have authored a fair percentage of the Controversies and Criticism section. I had already taken onboard change suggestions from Peter Southwood, but you might want to check with him on how totally well I have responded to his sourcing requests etc. Rexx is now editing the section I wrote. The cuts are what I would call extreme, and I feel they are uncalled for under the Wikipedia editing policies. Rexx says not. Perhaps you can set us both some guidance on this matter. I summarise the issues here, and Rexx’s views are expressed earlier on this discussion page.

So I will now “state my case”.

The issue of Synthesis”....

Rexx acuses me of synthesising my content to represent an argument that does not exist between DIR authorities and other diving authorities… the context here being solo diving, which is Rexx’s first edit area. Rexx is holding off from further edits while awaiting your opinion. Rexx accuses me of not even “read the policies”. I assure you that I have read the policies in detail. I will get down to answering the particular points raised by Rex here on this discussion page. The argument Rexx quotes to reject much of my entry is that :

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

I want to point out quite clearly that this IS NOT the type of argument I am putting forward as Wiki4Thai has already pointed out here. I do not take reliable source A statement and then use reliable source B statement to promote or imply any new conclusion C. (In terms of Mathematical Logic this combining is called a “Logical Conjunction” – A AND B - I fully recognise it is not allowable in Wikipedia) I use instead a pure NEGATION - reliable source A states exactly the OPPOSITE of what is being proposed by the other article authority B. In the solo diving section I quote several cave diving authorities who EACH SEPARATLY and independently support a practise that is the exact NEGATION of that stated by DIR. And negation is EXACTLY the very nature of controversy.

What is controversy?

The Dictionary definition of Controversy is “Argument between opposing points of view” and “disagreement especially in public” – all dictionaries have these meanings. This is exactly what I show in the area of solo diving and elsewhere in other sections – for example the “Controversy about fundamental philosophy” section later in my contribution (which is probably also due for the chop by Rexx on the same basis). I contrast statements of contention, I do not CONSTRUCT arguments. I use established authority.

Who is an authority?

Where I might get by a first hurdle in the “Synthesis” realm the next hurdle I face is the issue of notability – the case in point Bill Rennaker. Rexx says “ Bill Rennaker is an experienced diver but not a notable expert - he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page which is effectively the minimum requirement.” Therefore Rexx has Rennaker’s statements supporting solo diving in cave diving scrubbed. Bill Rennaker is in fact one of the highly noted American authorities on cave diving, an instructor for the NSS-CDS, NACD, and IANTD - a Fellow of the National Speleological Society, a leading innovator of cave diving equipment configuration, a leading instructor in these techniques, a founding director of his own cave diving facility/centre, a noted cave surveyor/explorer, a cave rescue diver and regional co-ordinator of the IUCRR. He argues for solo diving in cave diving. His sidemount designs have been structured to improve not just cave diving itself but also to expedite safer solo cave diving.

I believe that the fact that solo diving is a practise supported within the American cave diving community is VITAL to the presentation of facts on the matter. The text as edited by Rexx leaves only the British Cave Diving Group as holding a view on solo cave diving contrary to DIR, leaving the impression for American readers that it is only some quaint little British organisation that has this opposing view. Not True. I would also put this in the context that British diving and the BCDG in particular has received devastating and vitriolic attack from George Irvine; for example link – www.aktun.com/divehelmets.html - and it is quite unfair in these circumstances to edit down to leave a misconception for American divers that it is only the “stupid” British who do solo cave. Being an American myself I know how provincial my fellow countrymen can sometimes be. (and I am utterly mortified that someone prominent in the American diving community can treat such outstanding divers as the British with such clear contempt)

Rennaker is a leading American voice for cave solo diving. I am willing to put up a page on Wikipedia on Rennaker if absolutely necessary ( I did it for Bob Halstead under similar circumstances), but in all honesty I find this sort of use of editing is really quite obstructionist – we only have so much time to do Wikipedia work. We are all knowledgeable divers ourselves in judging diving qualifications- how could any of us reject the views of Rennaker as lacking in authority?

Moving on- the next hurdle, Rexx says Rennakers comments re: solo diving are inadmissible anyhow because “… the page contains no criticism of DIR.”

What must controversy over DIR contaln?

Suppose there are two parliamentarians A and B. A says Britain should join the Eurozone. B says that Britain should NOT join the Eurozone. Is there a controversy? Of course there is. Is it necessary for B to explicitly say “ I have a position that does not agree with parliamentarian A in particular with respect to parliamentarian A’s view of Britain joining the Eurozone” for us to establish that there is a fundamental difference (controversy) between the politican A and B. Of course not. Rexx says that because Rennaker does not SPECIFICALLY state that he disagrees with DIRs position on solo cave diving, so that his advocacy of Solo Diving for cave divers bears not controversy relative to the DIR position. This is surely total nonsense.

The next hurdle – Origin of Source Material

At this point I find criticism from Rexx that Rennaker’s statements on the Cave Adventures webisite “carries the disclaimer "The articles on Bill's Information pages were written by and contain simply the opinions of Bill Rennaker” Well yes, isn’t this exactly what we would expect, and what we want? Rennaker is quoting HIMSELF and applying his own expertise in this website, and saying so.

On a similar front - to show there is a controversy I quote a senior figure in the WPKK, who states that there actually is such controversy. My words: “In the exact words of Casey McKinlay, Project Director for the Woodville Karst Plain Project "I recognize the WKPP for numerous reasons has never been popular with many segments of the diving community." This, I contend, is a statement from the DIR/WKPP movement itself, recognising a controversial position in the industry

Rexx comment: “What makes a second-hand report in the Yorkshire Divers forums a reliable source? Is "ElvisTheKing" an acknowledged expert on Casey McKinlay, or does he enjoy a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?”

The Casey McKinlay statement appears on a number of forums, any one could be quoted as a source. It is a formal statement by Casey McKinlay. Rexx seems to infer that the statement could have been some sort of forgery set up Yorkshire Divers and/or possible by additional person(s) in these other forums. Is this infinitesimally plausible? Anything on the internet for that matter could be randomly accused of being a forgery by this criteria. And for what purpose could such a statement actually be fabricated? It beggars belief. Is this the basis to reject material?

The One size fits all headed Section

This entire section was deleted by Rexx. The claim for universal correctness is a major bone of contention where DIR both claims to be the only correct diving approach and labels all other practises as very poor, dangerous, and born of ignorance. To set the backdrop my opening statement is a quote from Jablonski himself:

“Controversy is reflected in the fundamental DIR text "Doing It Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving by Jarrod Jablonski which categorises other divers and diving agencies - "Today, there are dozens of diving agencies, offering many more different certification courses, in skill-sets ranging from basic open water to advanced Trimix instructor. Though divers emerging from these courses often possess vastly different skill and experience levels, nonetheless, the fact is that most seem to lack sound fundamental diving skills."

Rexx removes this material and infers that the statement reflects no controversy, and that it is ME as editor who is MAKING this into a controversy. This is absurd – I am only quoting. And this is EXACTLY what controversy is. Without a doubt this is an incredibly contentious and provocative stance. Why is it rejected as irrelevant by Rexx? This statement is a very important example. It shows the mindset of DIR very clearly. In his editing Rexx never suggests alternative wording, he just scrubs away the subsection.

I then go on to state that the claims of DIR of universal optimality are mathematically impossible. Here I will yield ground- it really is argumentative of me Not that it isn’t true…. it could be backed with endless chapter and verse from Optimality Theory but is this relevant to a diving readership? To me, with a very strong background in mathematics it is totally compelling argument, but it is an argument which could be construed as original research as applied to this particular case (though it really is universal) So I am certainly willing to do a rewrite of the One Size Fits all Section to improve sourcing and focus here….

So there we are in the main… Rexx promising to edit all the remaining section with the same approach. I would expect that by this criteria nothing much will remain. So this request for additional editorial guidance is quite important in this context Gene.

Synthesising in my opinion is a two edged sword. An author on Wikipedia can string together an arbitrary number of notable quotes to construct “original research” but by the same token an editor can, out of context, construct an arbitrary selection of editing criteria that bars any particular sources of “truth” from ever seeing the light of day. I am not accusing Rexx of deliberately doing this, but the effect of his editing has exactly the same effect in this case.

Just one closing statement. Without a doubt I do not believe many of the claims made for the DIR system (although I l approve of many of its underlying principals). I believe my own position on these matters are strongly represented in the dive community as a whole and nothing should be allowed to disguise the reality of this fact. We should possibly ask ourselves what are the two possible outcomes of this editing dispute- i.e. where will this all end up as seen through the eyes of a Wikipedia reader?

A comprehensive treatise on DIR beliefs and a very detailed coverage of the practises they encompass with the associated rationales for them and a brief mention that some other divers hold some contrary views OR
A comprehensive treatise on DIR beliefs and a very detailed coverage of the practises they encompass with the associated rationales for them and an overview of why this system has sparked some real controversy in the diving community

I do resent being accused of deliberately trying to establish my own personal views on this thread, this is NOT what I’ve been doing here.. I only seek to have a balanced treatment of the DIR movement here on Wikipedia. I make real effort to abide by the rules established here, an example being my completely refusing to post anything on the Halcyon controversies (although these too have some very notable sources). I believe I have also been quite circumspect in my representation of the controversy itself when I had a wide choice of using such quotes as GI calling PADI itself “real idiots ….the bottom of the food chain”.

I totally accept that my views of DIR are biased, I believe that Mark Ellyatt hit the nail on the head when he humorously described DIR as “Scientology Meets Scuba”. The movement starts from some very good fundamental principals about scuba practise and perverts them into an elitist, divisive ( and nasty), rigid credo with an assumed infallibility of their own priesthood. It fosters a terrible “them and us” mentality which never existed in the diving fraternity before. I am not concerned about DIR influence among the technical diver community – most technical divers are far too independent minded to accept everything DIR without question. I worry about more novice divers, the majority of Wiki readers I would assume. DIR claims of universality of configuration and practise to include recreational diving are not just risible; they are more dangerous for divers of this experience and diving ambition level (eg diving without a computer). With beginner divers, DIR appeals to an all too human “macho diver” mentality to dress up like the big boys do and swank it about – but they do this at the expense (and cost) of having kit that is actually less safe for their level of diving. Worst of all, these divers are taught to think that they have “Got it right” – essentially they do not need to take responsibility for thinking through how their kit is best suited for safe diving for THEM and the particular type of diving they do. I’m not at all trying to infer that all GUE or DIR people aren’t open or fair-minded – but I’d say that in this openness they are acting against the precepts of their own system – for at the heart of DIR thinking is the spirit of George Irvine III.

So I do not pretend to be neutral – but I AM trying to stick to the rules. Peter reminds me that on Wikipedia that it is verifiability and not truth that necessarily matters, but certainly within the confines of this important edict we should all seek to get as close to the truth as possible. I believe this is really possible with understanding, fair and open editing. And this is all I ask. If truth really needs to be perverted to achieve “manageability” of Wikipedia, what is really the point of the whole exercise?

Anyhow.

Might I suggest that you read Rexx’s comments and my own comments here and with all this in mind take my original text and edit the material as you see the conventions and situation requires? I commit to accept your judgment in the matter totally. Or you may have a better approach…. which again I will abide by.

Regards --HowieKor (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DIR developments

Hi Howie, I have been busy with other things for the last couple of weeks, and now find that things have been getting a bit heated in my absence. It is a pity that you and RexxS have become polarised to this extent, as most of what I have seen of both of your work on WP has been reasoned, logical and in good faith. It looks like anything I would say now is a bit after the fact, so I plan to sit back and see what happens for a while. It looks like Legis has got some discussion on the article going on Scubaboard, and it is possible that something useful may come out of it. Cheers, and compliments of the season. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of diving hazards and precautions

Hi Howie, If you are still around, I would appreciate your input on some changes I am considering for the format and possibly name of this article. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter

Glad to be of help if I can. As a great fan of tables myself, I must say this is one of the most effective uses of tables to present information that I've ever seen.

Re: the content I have only given it a quick skim so far and only points I would raise presently are:

1) Add the "Heart Attack" hazard - it is one of the leading causes of diving accident/death in an increasingly ageing diving population. The precaution of course is medical screening, maintained fitness, and avoiding high exertion dive activity

2) in sections on gas changing I think it's worthwhile highlighting the importance of the procedure taken in gas switchover to absolutely insure the correct gas is being switched to. Marking of cylinders is only half the battle from a few accident reports I've seen

I will read the article in detail several times more ( I'm on a short holiday at the moment) and see if there is any comments for me to add

As for the title I'd suggest "Diving Hazards and Their Mitigation"

Re: the table format itself I'd suggest that text be "top aligned" in all cells - I think it is much more readable and well structured in that way, but this can possibly just be my personal choice? A second suggestion is to bullet all the multiple points in the Avoidance and Prevention column

I must say Peter, this seems a very valuable contribution for Wiki diving content.... A worthwhile read at anytime to prepare for safe diving

Hope all goes well with you

Regards Howie

Thanks for the comments. Taken on board for consideration. I think you are right about the top alignment and particularly the bulleting, but so far I have not worked out how to do those things.

There is scope for a lot of extra hazards. I am trying firstly to upgrade what was a rather appalling article to something that at least isnt full of bad information, then wikify it, to suit MOS, then adequately reference, then expand.

Cheers, and enjoy your holiday, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]