Main areas of experience (and editing interest): cars, technology (especially electronics), and martial arts (particularly the more subtle arts that focus on kuzushi, such as classical judo and Jiyushinkai Aikibudo, an off-shoot of Tomiki/Shodokan Aikido without the competitions). And anything else that hits my fancy. Like missing commas.
I promise that my edits will be as free from bias as I can possibly make them. I edit with no agenda in mind other than to improve Wikipedia so that it will be around, in a much improved form, by the time my young daughter grows up. I strive to remain very calm when dealing with other editors, and even more so with new editors and vandals (so as to not insult them).
Also note that articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be timeless, and are supposed to be written about topics with lasting notability. This last one, is unfortunately, largely being ignored by new and experienced editors alike.
receiving alternate ref notes
Third-party reliable references of one or more of following are needed to meet Wikipedia's requirements for a WP:BIO article:
- The person has received significant recognized awards or honors
- The person has demonstrable wide name recognition
- The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
- With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions
- Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following
- Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment
- The person is widely cited or regarded as an important figure by their peers or successors
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique
- ... these help justify keeping the article.
Example wording to help new users
- Wikipedia can't project opinion. For example, in NO case can an article have something like It is incongruous that Greenpeace does not campaign on population issues., as shown [diff here]. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
- Further more, even if that statement were reworded with a completely neutral tone, we couldn't use it because the reference is to the Greenpeace website itself. In other words, Wikipedia is drawing a conclusion from their public website. That is also against wikipedia policy - please read Wikipedia:No original research.
- ALL content in articles must basically summarize material which has already been published in reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- Lastly, a number of edits tend drift slightly off the direct topic of the article. For example, the discussion about I = PAT, while interesting, is not a direct criticism of Greenpeace, and as such, does not belong in that article. At most, if a reliable, third-party has published a criticism of Greenpeace using I=PAT as a basis for their criticism, it MIGHT warrant a BRIEF (one or two sentence) mention in this article. Wikipedia articles, if allowed to drift and include such material, would be come a huge incomprehensible clutter of disparaging information.
I'm sorry to say that almost every paragraph of your most recent edits violate one or more of these policies, and as such, we can't accept the edits. In summary, all articles in Wikipedia need to be approached as if they were well researched items for a major nation-wide newspaper. They need to be objectively written and they need to summarize EXISTING reputable published sources. I hope this does a better job of explaining how you can better contribute to Wikipedia! If you have any specific questions, please feel free to respond below.