User talk:࿇

Welcome and a note about ISE
Welcome to Wikipedia. When you added the entry for ISE to List of diver certification organizations, did miss the note at the top that said: or did you just decide to ignore it? Of course it's always possible that you don't understand what is meant by "a citation to an independent reliable source". That would be a source that is not directly connected to ISE, and I'm afraid that their website just doesn't fit that. Have a look at the discussion at Talk:List of diver certification organizations and see if you can find a source that shows ISE is recognised by an independent standards authority like Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques, World Recreational Scuba Training Council or European Underwater Federation - all of the other entries are able to show that. If you do find the recognition, then please feel free to re-instate your edits along with a reference to the recognition, in the same way that all the others have. --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't add entries to this list unless they have       *
 * a citation to an independent reliable source.                *
 * See the discussion at:                                       *
 * Talk:List of diver certification organizations *
 * See the discussion at:                                       *
 * Talk:List of diver certification organizations *
 * Hey, i saw the note, but was also seeing other agencies (especially tec and cave diving agencies) listed which are neither CMAS, WRSTC or EUF members. Some of the existing entries (especially cave/tec agencies) also have only links to their own website, so i only added ISE in the same way and with the same info that "the others have". Please note that in the tec/cave diving circles many of the established agencies are not members of the big (rec diving) federations due to cost and the cave/tec agencies in general being small as the tec diving scene itself is much smaller than the rec diving scene. As requested i have now re-added ISE with references to their instructor list and instructor training information (something you had criticized on the article talk page a couple of years back) and also some well-known equipment manufacturers and internet forums that recognize them. Hope it's OK now, otherwise please let me know. Apologies for any mistakes, i'm new to this whole Wikipedia editing thing. ࿇ (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the problem faced by a small agency in gaining wide recognition, and I'm sympathetic to ISE, but we have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise the list would contain every dive shop that claims to be a training agency on its own say-so. I hope you can appreciate why we have decided to list only organisations that have much broader recognition, and request some evidence of that. If you look at the recreational list, you'll see that the only exceptions to the CMAS/WRSTC/EUF recognitions are the ones recognised by the Egyptian Chamber of Diving and Watersports (i.e. for Red Sea diving) or the UK Health and Safety Executive. One other exception exists, which is Unified Team Diving, a small DIR-based agency like ISE, which is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, so has been accepted onto the list as sufficiently well-recognised. One option for you would be to read about WP:notability and see if you can find sufficient coverage of ISE in multiple independent sources that would allow you to write a Wikipedia article about Inner Space Explorers. Let me know if you do that, and I'll help you with any problems you encounter.
 * Frankly, I don't think the recognition afforded by a manufacturer like Scubapro, or a forum like Scubaboard (both of which I have a lot of time for) is in the same class as that of a national or international body concerned with regulating diving and its training, do you? Nevertheless, I'll let it stand for now and I'll ask, who does a lot of curation of the certification agencies, for a third opinion. I have removed or commented out the non-independent links you gave from the rec section: I see that it's more usual to have them in the tech/cave sections, so I left them there. I hope that's a reasonable compromise for you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think the recognition afforded by a manufacturer like Scubapro, or a forum like Scubaboard (both of which I have a lot of time for) is in the same class as that of a national or international body concerned with regulating diving and its training, do you? Nevertheless, I'll let it stand for now and I'll ask, who does a lot of curation of the certification agencies, for a third opinion. I have removed or commented out the non-independent links you gave from the rec section: I see that it's more usual to have them in the tech/cave sections, so I left them there. I hope that's a reasonable compromise for you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)