NavList:

   

Reply

Frank,

At the risk of provoking your ire, I would opine that, as the manager of 
NavList, which we all appreciate, you can discipline the members of NavList 
for their contributions to our discussion group, but you have no writ to 
discipline what Andres Ruiz or anyone else does outside of NavList, for 
example on Wikipedia. 

Sent from my iPhone
JMcD 


> On Jul 1, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Frank Reed  wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

   

Reply