User talk:Hombre 2000

Reverted Jan Scruggs edits
Hi... I see you've helped out on editing the article Jan Scruggs. Those edits have, unfortunately, been reverted. There are a number of problems with the edits you did.


 * 1) - Wikipedia absolutely requires that all biographies of living people be completely sourced. These sources must be neutral, unbiased, and published.   Adding information that you, personally, "know to be true" constitutes what Wikipedia calls "original research".  Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia.  Many of the changes you made violated these rules.
 * 2) - Some of the changes you made were inserted into existing sentences.  However, if you look up the source, the source doesn't contain the information you added.  This is unintentionally deceptive, as a reader of Wikipedia would conclude that the source supported your edit.  In the future, to avoid such things, you should either (a) add your information (with an inline citation) after the existing sentence, or (b) insert your edit into the sentence but add a new source (with an inline citation) at the end of the sentence to back it up.
 * 3) - Some of your edits change existing factual claims.  It's true that published sources sometimes get things wrong, or may conflict with one another.  Because of the strict requirements of Wikipedia's rules about biographies of living people, no one can just change the facts published by the source.  Instead, you would have to find another neutral, published source that makes the claim.  When sources conflict, Wikipedia suggests that both claims be included in the text (properly cited, of course), and the reader should be permitted to make up their own mind as to which is correct.
 * 4) - Some of your edits, stylistically, do not reflect a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not an advertisement. The encyclopedia does not exist to make people "look good". Judgements about people should be made by published sources (like historians, critics, and the like), not by editors of the encyclopedia. It's really important to be as neutral as possible, rather than to choose language which promotes a cause (like how great a person's actions are, or how insightful a person is).  For example, it's all right to say "The project will cost $10 million."  It's not to say "John Doe is raising the $10 million the project will cost."  These are judgment calls, but other editors have the right to play with the language, too.  Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, after all.
 * 5) - Finally, stick to the topic. A few of the edits you made more properly should be included on, say, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial page, or some other page. There's overlap, to be sure, but think carefully about where some information should really go.

I really hope you read the linked articles. It's very important that the guidelines and rules be followed. I hope you keep editing! - Tim1965 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)