NavList:

Andres, you wrote:
"Updated! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sight_reduction"

Some things for you to consider. First, your article is largely redundant. The article on the intercept method covers nearly everything in your sight reduction page, except maybe your boosterism of hav-Doniol. The "intercept method" article is better in some ways. You should consider merging the article that you created into that pre-existing article. I notice that you edited the "intercept method" article a couple of days ago to include a link to your "sight reduction" page. This is pointless, and it will be undone eventually no matter what. You are the sole editor on the sight reduction page. An orphan page like this is inevitably folded into better pre-existing pages. You might as well do it yourself.

Your boosterism of the hav-Doniol methodology breaks one of the principal article standards for Wikipedia: no original research. Of course, one could claim that an article in Ocean Navigator provides an exception --proving that this is not original research. But that's just sneaking around the problem. The fact of the matter is that your article does not describe sight reduction, as it is done, and as it exists today. Instead you are misrepresenting a new and experimental method of sight reduction, employed in practical navigation by almost no one, as a standard method.

This is proselytizing. You're trying to use Wikipedia to change the way navigators work. Arguably this breaches the basic principle of neutral point of view on Wikipedia.

All that said, a small page on a minor topic which is being read by only a handful of people, mostly connected with NavList, is a harmless thing, and in the long haul there's no damage done. But bear in mind, you're treading on those very few principles upon which Wikipedia is founded.

Frank Reed
Conanicut Island USA