User talk:DevonJohn

Cite sources!
Hi. I noticed your edits at James Eberle as well as the rest of your problematic edit history. I can understand your impulse to "correct" Wikipedia to fit what you believe to be true. That, however, is unsustainable. Wikipedia can only become trustworthy if it's based upon reliable sources. For that reason, we care far more about what you can prove, versus what's "true." You can look at a list of times hoaxes were perpetuated on Wikipedia to understand. We cannot trust you or any editor. We trust published, reliable sources that can be checked to verify the claims made. For that reason, unless you have a published reliable source, do not add content to Wikipedia. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

“problematic history”
Chris Thanks for that. I understand the Eberle issue ... I know the family well and was merely trying to update his page but I will await a second hand source rather than an original and non-internet one. I don’t understand the “problematic history” so I’d be grateful for more detail. The only other page I have updated relates to the quite error strewn page on the Upholder class submarines, which do not cite their every (incorrect) fact. Thanks and look forward to your clarification John DevonJohn (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, discounting the edits made to user talk pages, you've never made a constructive edit. is unsourced.  is unsourced.  you shamefully cite yourself. Despite having registered an account ten years ago, it would seem you never bothered to read any of our guidance, which is why I take such offense at your apparent contempt for our community. Please jettison all idea of what you believe to be true. Stop by your local library and pick a book, and then use that as a citation to improve Wikipedia. Unless you have an acceptable source, your content will be rejected.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok
Your bile is unnecessary. I was simply trying to add fact to this website. I dont think it shameful to use personal experience to add such fact; especially when what your community seems to accept as fact is so woefully inadequate. But rest assured, following your bile, i will cease engagement, and return to the real world. DevonJohn (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Your bile is unnecessary." Not at all. Other editors have been cleaning up your edits for years and none of them gave you the respect of an explanation. I took the time to allow you to integrate into our community, rather than simply revert and ignore you as if you were some 12 year-old troll. You're welcome. "I dont think it shameful to use personal experience to add such fact;" You should. I know a great many things. I don't have the arrogance to simply write what I think without providing sources as if I was doing everyone a favor. I recognize Wikipedia has organized its own community rules and I abide by them because, like speeding and littering, breaking rules evinces contempt for the community. I wouldn't come over to your house, put my feet up on your furniture, and drink your alcohol without your permission. Don't come to our collective house and add content without citations. "especially when what your community seems to accept as fact is so woefully inadequate." Yes, that's an issue. Because Wikipedia stupidly allows everyone to edit, most of our articles are poorly-written and unsourced. This is unfortunate because it creates an impression amongst new editors that this sort of thing is allowed. Often when a new editor writes a new article, they look at the articles about other similar subjects to glean our community norms instead of reading our formal guidance. They always get angry when a Wikipedian like me informs them their content must be deleted, insisting as you have that they thought they were helping Wikipedia out. We, as a community, have to enforce our rules because otherwise it would be a race to the bottom: the lowest common denominator would become the acceptable standard which would result in a disservice to the reader. "i will cease engagement, and return to the real world." If only that were so. Good editors quit all the time or they die all too young. Bad editors seldom leave. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be complicated and contradictory but they're not too hard to obey. You could decide to cooperate. As a matter of fact, we have a group of editors that focus specifically on military topics. I hope you see that Wikipedia isn't for someone like you but I know better. When your need to set the world straight about what's true, I hope you read and re-read what I've written (as well as all the blue links I've provided) and become a constructive contributor. In the meantime, know that someone on the internet is wrong. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)