Aardwark

July 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article, or a draft for a Wikipedia article, about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Notable people who have edited Wikipedia). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

if you look closely this is NOT my biography Aardwark (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Reply

I saw that you had correctly declared a COI, but nothing obvious to indicate that it wasn't you. Either way, please don't write about yourself, your friends or relatives and read the guidance below:

• When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.

• we require independent third-party sources, but your text is almost entirely sourced to papers that he has written himself or sources closely associated with him. Some text has no references. His own papers can't make him notable, they should be listed in a "Publications " section with no further referencing. His notability depends on his academic positions, awards, and coverage in reputable sources independent of him. Unsourced text has no value whatsoever. You say your self secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. yet do the opposite.

• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.

• Lots of unsourced claims: It is one of the most controversial problems in electrical engineering, initiated by Steinmetz..[1] in 1892, and debated by thousands of scientists in the twentieth century, with thousands of published articles. Nine different power theories (PT) evolved from this debate with mutually conflicting explanations of these properties and methods of compensation. -supposed sources of this are the Steinmetz paper and a list of Czarnecki's journal articles, neither of which supports your sweeping claims, are not secondary sources and only one of which is even independent. Unsourced claims include the whole of his professional career, his public activity, including the supposed decorations, and the underwater stuff

• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

• I didn't check

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. He's probably notable, but you can't just dump text sourced to his own publications or not at all and expect it to be acceptable.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, since I no longer have access to the text You did chose to delete it will be hard to argue otherwise but:

Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them.

Except for references to his own website majority of references were to outside sources supporting the "claim to notability" - published science proceedings, notes at Stanford University index of researches, or press articles like the one in Taternik. While I can see Your point regarding claims to public activity including decoration (I did try my best to look for the reference in Louisiana State House of representatives the best I could do would be to include scanned texts of resolution etc, but not sure if that would do, although there are mentions of that in some places) or the underwater stuff these are not the main points and are hardly on par with the claim that his professional career which spans some 60 years of research, resulting in over 160 papers published across broad range of research journals, over 90 proceedings form conferences, and being ranked by Stanford/Elsevier's as one of Top 2% Scientist worldwide whose papers have been cited over 6000 times is an unsourced claim. So - again - while I get Your point regarding some of the text, I'd certainly prefer to work on improving what was there, instead of just dumping it all to trash. Especially that Wikipeda thinks that being a millionaire grants inclusion in its index but being a Distinguished Professor doesn't

regards Aardwark (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)