Writer/Editor/Reseacher.
...and yes, I do this in real life.

Areas of speciality in lecturing and writing are history, ancient mythology, biblical mythlogy, cosmological history, Freemasonry, etymology, mathematics and psychology.

A Wikipedia member since Jun 2003, contributor/editor since March 2004, took a break and renewed my account in Sept. 2007. After a period of years of regular editing I again went on hiatus due to other publishing obligations. Since 2013 I have been a low-key on-again-off-again editor. Essentially, all Wikipedia content should be taken as quick reference tool for a few basic hard facts (dates) and keywords, and should never replace consulting with outside work by dedicated specialist for 'real content'.

• The number of badges, stars, pictures, cats, widgets, milestones, flashy-colored things, pat-on-the-back counters or other aggrandizing nonsense on your user page does not impress me. Sorry.

• Your 'Wiki-world self' needs to check in with your 'real-world self' to see if how you're acting with people here is really appropriate; this goes triple for daily or regular Wiki-junkies and users-admins.

• A million laypersons editing content achieves far less than one dedicated specialist focused on the information, Wikipedia proves this in grand fashion daily.

First, don’t try to pull one over on other users, with fluff articles and edits, it’s all been done before and there are some very knowledgeable and fastidious people here who will happily put a stop to that and have fun doing it. Things like, writing an article about your favorite local band because you are certain they will eventually become famous or about yourself for the same reason. These things should always be put into perspective when preparing articles and making contextual edits.

Second, in your work, always be diligent with your edits and be alert to abusive users, “violation-ists” and “deletion-ists” who may dedicate themselves in large part to only taking issue with you and your edits wherever they possibly can; this is common place here among overly detailed-type people that are regular users and things can sometimes get bogged down in some rather subjective and sometimes ambiguous overlapping concepts of bureaucratic policy, in the name of “improving Wikipedia”. But don’t let that discourage you. It’s Wikipedia not the World, and don’t let it take over your life! Just exercise your wit and learn together with them.

Third, do your best not to be harsh with people here having their Wikipedia experiences, especially those engaged in specialized topics and subject areas. One thing you should learn right away, there are established patterns here, and right or wrong, they are fixed in many ways that you may not agree with or they do not make sense in a “real-world” concept of documented information, and there is usually some policy that tries to pertain to that. This is both an asset in some areas of Wikipedia and it can be one of its more fundamental flaws as well. It's a case-by-case basis here, and involved users do the best they can but outcomes don’t always apply equally between articles, that is why it is considered a democratized consensus of information, “wikipedic” not encyclopedic. Consensus isn’t always sensical and its best to remember that for your Wikipedia experience!

More fun things to come…!