User talk:Zuggurnaut

May 2016
Hello, I'm RexxS. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Snuba without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Please also click on these links: MOS:CAPS and MOS:BOLD. They explain our conventions on the use of capitals and bold text in Wikipedia articles.'' RexxS (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're much better off writing replies here than via email. I check my watchlist more often than my email. Everything here will be seen by others who will also be able to give you advice. I'll take the liberty of quoting your message here:
 * "Hello there RexxS. I recently changed the definition of Snuba because the content was outdated and poorly written. I currently work as a marketing and graphics consultant for Snuba and was hoping to update the Snuba wikepedia page with details that were more relevant and updated. I've tried 2x now to do this and each time my edits are rejected and reversed. What am I doing wrong? Any help you can provide would help me as I've already spent a few hours on this project that have been wasted....."
 * "Hello there RexxS. I recently changed the definition of Snuba because the content was outdated and poorly written. I currently work as a marketing and graphics consultant for Snuba and was hoping to update the Snuba wikepedia page with details that were more relevant and updated. I've tried 2x now to do this and each time my edits are rejected and reversed. What am I doing wrong? Any help you can provide would help me as I've already spent a few hours on this project that have been wasted....."


 * Several points here:
 * We welcome contributions that improve outdated and poorly written content. However, we have policies that require content to be sourced to reliable published sources; this is an encyclopedia, after all. This is your edit I objected to. As you can see, you removed the entire lead section, complete with five references, and replaced it with a completely unsourced paragraph. That's not an improvement.
 * Anyone who is paid by a company has a conflict-of-interest when editing pages closely related to that company. You are required by the terms and conditions of this site to make a disclosure. You really need to read Conflict of interest thoroughly and abide by its advice. If there's anything there that you don't understand, then please ask any questions here. I am watching this page and I or another editor will do their best to answer your specific queries.
 * To get some insight to what you are doing wrong, you need to understand how articles are written. Editors first read all the sources that they can find on a topic; then they do their best to neutrally summarise all of the major points in those sources. You probably also need to read Identifying reliable sources that explains which sources are best and our preference for independent sources published in a medium that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * Have you read Talk:Snuba? The talk page for the article is an excellent place for a discussion of potential improvements to the article. If you're not sure about an edit, start a discussion there. I've just created a new section to discuss the text "no compressible dive suit" and marked the article with a disputed inline tag, so you can see how that is used.
 * Now looking at your latest changes:
 * You removed a statement critical to snuba on the grounds that it has never happened, so it is irrelevant. If the statement that snuba divers have no form of buoyancy compensator is true, then surely the concern about dealing with an emergency is very relevant? It's already been undone by a very experienced editor, . The statement is unsourced, however, so you should be requesting that a citation is supplied. You can add the tag after a statement to do that. Either someone will find a source, or you will have justification ("unsourced") for removing it. In any case, your judgement about the relevance of the statement will never be a consideration in that decision. I've added that tag now so that you can see how it works.
 * The next edit which cleaned up the writing - changing passive to active voice, and making the text more focussed - is exactly the sort of improvements that will win you friends here. Can you see why the first edit is frowned on and the second one is applauded?
 * Please feel free to talk about your problems with editing here, but try to raise issues about the article itself on the Talk:Snuba page. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)