This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Avanu(talk | contribs) at 05:31, 2 May 2012(Creating example of Paid Editor Userbox (will self-revert)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:31, 2 May 2012 by Avanu(talk | contribs)(Creating example of Paid Editor Userbox (will self-revert))
All edits and content added or removed from Wikipedia shall be done in a ethical manner and in compliance with the Neutral Point of View policy. Advocacy or promotional material is forbidden.
One of my personal interests is martial arts. I trained in Enshin Karate in the US and did a little Judo after coming to Japan. I've also trained a little in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I believe that a well-rounded education in martial arts includes study in both striking and grappling, stand-up and ground disciplines.
I also run. I completed the 2001 Montgomery County Marathon in the Parks and the 2010 Tokyo Marathon. I encourage everyone to complete a marathon once as it is an incredible feeling of accomplishment. Lately, I've been working on the shorter distances, as breaking 20 minutes in a 5k has long been a goal of mine that I haven't yet quite reached. My fastest time so far is 20:29, set on 10 February 2012 on a fairly flat course. Due to chronic knee pain, in May 2011 I started transitioning to minimalist running. I completed the switch in about three months and now no longer do heel-toe running. My knee pain has, so far, disappeared.
My editing
I've been editing Wikipedia with an account since January 2006. Although I at first edited martial arts-related topics, I now mainly work on military history or Japan-related articles. I usually participate in the World War II (WWII) Pacific campaign topic area. I also work on military accident, friendly fire, and military controversy articles. The entries in the "to do" list below are articles that I plan on trying to take to Featured Article (FA)-level status, if they aren't there already. I don't mean to imply any ownership over these articles. I have listed most of the reference books in my possession on this page.
Over the years, most of the people I've talked to about their use of Wikipedia tell me they read an article's intro (lede) then usually skip down to the references without reading the article body. If so, perhaps that explains why this obvious vandalism lasted almost three days in an article which receives almost 1,000 hits a day. It also may mean that it's a waste to spend too much time debating the wording of controversial content, if not that many people are reading it anyway. I haven't seen a study yet, however, which examines whether this is true or not with most Wikipedia readers.
Based on some of my experiences and observations I've written, with help from a few other editors, an essay on issues that Wikipedia sometimes has with activist editors. The essay is called WP:ACTIVIST.
Content
Articles that I've edited, with appreciated assistance from other editors, and successfully nominated for FA:
On November 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eurasian Land Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On August 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1941 Harvard-Navy lacrosse game, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tainan Air Group, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 27 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Dalton II, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 8 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tadayoshi Sano, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 16 July, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Battle of Wanat, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.
Some tips that I've discovered in choosing, editing, and submitting history articles for FA:
Choose a non-controversial subject. If the article you want to work on is under the ``protection`` of one or more POV-pushers, you're just going to immensely frustrate yourself trying to work through the wall of interference that those other editors will throw up as you try to improve the article. The best is if you can find an article that has been left alone for some time (check the history). Of course, choose a subject that's interesting to you. If you choose to improve an article that has several sub-articles (like a military campaign that includes several sub-battles), take the sub-articles to FA first. Then, the "parent" article will have basically written itself from the completed sub-articles. (Oct 08 update) Wikipedia has improved a lot in this aspect, there are now much fewer history articles owned by POV pushers. If you find one, bring it to someone's attention and it will be (eventually) taken care of.
Acquire your references first. Having the right references is the most important part of writing the article. Search the Web or the local library and find all the references you'll need for the article. An FA article is expected to use a fair proportion of the available sources on the subject matter, so try to obtain as many sources as possible. Try your local public or university library or you can buy used books online very cheaply. Add your list of references to the article first, so that other, helpful editors can also jump-in to assist if they want to and have access to the references you list (this has happened to me). The more references you can acquire and use, the better. What one historian misses may be recorded by another historian. Try to get references that give the point of view from all sides of the event.
You may need to order an out-of-print book from a bookseller in another country. Once, the cheapest price that I could find for an out-of-print book that I needed for an article from online US used booksellers was US$165. I then found the book at an online Australian used bookseller for US$20 so, even with the increased postage it was much, much cheaper.
If one of the "sides" in a battle was from an English-speaking country, and the other "side" spoke a different language, it has been my experience that it may be hard to find sources in English that give adequate coverage to the non-English speaking participants. It is worth it to make the effort to find sources that give the "other" side. The article will be much more complete.
In a topic which is less controversial, editors are often given a little more leeway in using synthesis to try to represent the essential truth of what took place in the historical event in question and its significance to history. Nevertheless, an editor must still be able to support their conclusions drawn from the sources. When doing so, remember two potential traps when using sources:
We often give more credence to sources which support what we already believe, and,
The sources we find are not necessarily a scientific sample of all available information, especially if the event is relatively recent, but a portion of a larger, more complex information picture. This is why it's so important to try to obtain sources, even if they are in a different language, that give the point of view of all the sides involved in the historical event.
Article outline. I would suggest the following basic outline for a history article: Background, Incident (or Battle, Action, Event, etc), Aftermath and/or Significance, and Notes and References. The "Incident" section can be further broken up into "Prelude" and other subsections by time or event if necessary to keep the section from being too long. Just like with a speech, the article should have a "graceful ending." The last sentence should bring the article to a definite close. One way to do this is to use a pithy quote from an historian or reporter about the event that was covered in the article.
Cite (inline) liberally. You can't have too many footnotes, but you can have too little. Cite every assertion and have at least one citation at the end of every paragraph so that it doesn't look like you have any "dangling," uncited text. Also, spread your citations out among your references so that it doesn't look like you're using one or two sources for everything. Lately I've started combining all the citations for a paragraph in a single footnote at the end of the paragrah and that seems to be working out fine so far.
Illlustrate. Find pictures and maps with ok copyright status (or create supporting maps or images yourself), upload them to Wikimedia Commons, and add a Commons link from the article to the Commons gallery where you list all of the images related to the article. This way editors in the other Wikipedia language editions can access the images you upload and use them for the articles on the same subject that they're writing in their language (yes, I've seen this done with images I uploaded to the Commons). Adjust the flow of the text of the article to support images you add that emphasize particular events. In this way you can make your article more of a multi-media presentation instead of just a written report on something. I've sometimes made the decision on whether to create a new article on a subject based solely on if there were enough images available to adequately illustrate the article. Take some time and do several searches on the Internet to find images. You'll be surprised at the unlikely places you'll find relevant images for the article you're editing.
Something that I've discovered recently is how images should be placed in an article. If the person or object in the picture is facing or pointing towards the right, then the picture should be on the left side of the text. If facing or pointing to the left, then it should be on the right side. Doing this somehow makes the article look more complete and have greater impact.
Is the creation of your own illustration for an article engaging in original research? It can be if you don't do it correctly. If you create your own illustration, be it a map, drawing, or other type of graphic, you should add a footnote to the image caption sourcing where you obtained your information from to create the illustration. Of course, the same information should also be on the image file page.
Something to consider in illustrating a battle article is the placement of images depicting the two sides. If you can place all the images on the right side throughout the article depicting the adversary listed on the right side of the info box, and vice versa for the other adversary, you've created an interesting and perhaps, attractive tableau of the two forces seeming to square off against each other across the article page. The problem with this is the principle described above of needing to place the images as facing or moving "into" the article. Of the two considerations, I propose that the latter is more important.
Wikilink. Don't over-wikilink, but wikilink to topics that are directly related to the article. Don't be afraid to redlink topic titles that should have articles created for them. After redlinking notable topics, go through and start stubs on all of them. Although this is time-consuming, it helps to build the encyclopedia. How to start a new article with a minimum of problems:
Conduct a search on Google and Wikipedia's internal search engine to ensure that the article doesn't already exist under a different title. Also, search Wikimedia Commons for related images.
Using the Wikipedia search results list, go to all the articles listed and redlink all mentions of the topic that you're about to start an article on. This will ensure that all the links to your article will exist at the moment of its creation.
Either open a new article window under the topic title, or else create it on a page in your userspace. Don't make the first save to the new article in main space until the initial draft is complete, i.e. including a lede, infobox, images, if any, categories, and most importantly, references. Otherwise, before you can blink an eye a Wikipedia sanitation custodian will nominate the article for deletion or template it with some other trouble banner before you've completed the initial draft of the article. If this happens, you should be able to fix it, but it's a pain to have to deal with. So, have the article fully ready as a viable stub before hitting the save button for the first time.
Create redirects for the common, alternate search names for the article you've just created.
Step back periodically. If you're stumped or your writing isn't flowing well, take a break and do something else with your free time for a day or so. An idea for the article may occur to you when your mind is on something else. Happens to me all the time. An encyclopedic-style article can be written in a concise and neutral manner, yet still produce some dramatic tension for the reader if written well.
Write neutrally. I know that this is one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia, but, it still bears repeating. If someone can read your article and not be able to tell which side you're taking on the battle, event, or issue, then you've succeeded in writing it neutrally.
Don't forget the "human element" After all is said and done, the story you are telling, if about an historic event, involves your fellow human beings involved in a very dramatic situation. Try to have at least one item in the article that expresses this human element, whether it be a quote from a participant, an image clearly showing a person, not just a landscape or an object, or the mention of one individual's or group's thoughts, exploits, or experience. Since this is an encyclopedic entry, the human element example needs to be brief and not too POV (for example, overly extolling the "heroism" aspect of any individual's participation in the event) for one particular side or it will be counterproductive. An easy way to do this is to include images of the respective commanders or leaders of the forces involved (if the article is about a battle). The best seems to be a brief quote from a participant or even better if you have quotes from participants on both sides of the event.
Remember the big picture. Don't forget to explain the significance of the event or battle in the context of the war, campaign, or time period that it was part of and how the results of the event affected future history. Don't just report on the event, explain it also.
Submit for peer review, then Good Article or A-Class review. The motivated and helpful peer, Good Article, and A-class review editors, either with the military history project, WP:BIO, or the general peer review and Good Article forums, will point-out any flaws or issues with your article that you might have missed. Resolve the issues that they highlight in their review.
Don't fight with the FA reviewers. After you nominate your article as an FA candidate, assume that the comments or criticism that comes from the FA candidate reviewers are being made in good faith. Respond constructively and try to correct whatever they point-out, even if you don't agree with it. If they ask or object to something that you feel isn't reasonable, still try to work with them to resolve their concern in a constructive and calm manner.
Further advice...Giano has written a good essay on the FA process here. Yannismarou has also written some good advice on the process as well as a tutorial. Some further insightful commentary on the FAC process is contained here, here, and here. Finally, Tony has written an extensive writing guide here.
Welcome and appreciated compliments from fellow editors
For your massive contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of the Pacific Theater of World War II, I hereby bestow upon you the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award. Kirill Lokshin 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)This motivated barnstar is given to Cla68 for his tireless contirbutions to Wikipedia's coverage of the Pacific Theater of World War II and US Navy and Marine Corps history. Presented by Looper5920 18 November 2006
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For helping me with the copyedit of Aleksandr Vasilevsky, this RAK Star for you! :) Grafikm(AutoGRAF) 18:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar for your efforts in tirelessly researching references for the Japanese war crimes article. Keep up the good work! John Smith's 16:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The Featured Article Medal
What??? 5 FAs and still not having this one? That's a major oversight! -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF) 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Pacific Theatre, 1941-45 Barnstar
For sustained, solid research and editing, in adding references to many Pacific War articles. Grant65 | Talk 06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For the constant stream of FA's. Keep it up! James086Talk | Contribs 13:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your many valuable contributions to military history articles, and, in particular, your leading role in the creation of numerous featured articles on the topic of the Pacific Theater of World War II. For the coordinators, Kirill Lokshin 01:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have awarded you this medal for your work in helping to reduce the backlog during the Good Article Candidates Backlog Elmination Drive. You reviewed five or more articles during the drive, which helped to contribute to the large decrease in the backlog. If you have the time, please continue to review articles to help make sure the backlog does not jump back up to what it was. Good job and happy editing! Nehrams2020 06:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
In recognition of your courageous acts and concerned words. Risker 02:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from August 2007 to February 2008, please accept this barnstar.--ROGER DAVIEStalk 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I, Dragon695, hereby present you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar in recognition of your taking on the thankless task of seeing that our policies are applied in a fair and equitable manner, regardless of whether the person is a sinner or a saint. Let the inspiring words of Sir Winston Churchill help to guide your way:
“
...never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.
By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for your "extensive contributions to Featured Articles related to the Pacific Front of World War II, including the construction of a massive 18-article complete featured topic on the Guadalcanal Campaign", I award you this Silver Wiki. --ROGER DAVIEStalk 03:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For your oustanding efforts during Operation Trailblazer, culminating in the 2009 Featured Topic nomination for the Iowa-class battleships, the passage of which resulted in the first ever Wikipedia Featured Topic concerning ships exclusively, I herby present you with The Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for all of your help, this is as much your Featured Topic as it is mine. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
For writing articles that appeared in the American Journalism Review article Wikipedia in the Newsroom I hereby present you with The Press Barnstar. To date, you are exactly the second user to have received this barnstar, so live it up and, as always, keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
For your work on various WWII FAs, particularly the excellent example it sets for others in thoroughly researching many different sources and covering all viewpoints and differences in sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
For consistently upholding standards of civility on AGW pages, and helping to bring this essential quality out in others. Jprw (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
For all of your staggeringly valuable assistance with finding photos of the Kongo class battlecruisers during the rewrites of the various article associated with the topic. Your help is hugely appreciated! Cam(Chat)(Prof) 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
_on_10_November_1943_(80-G-205473).jpg)
_March_1944.jpg)
