View source for User:Joe Sewell

{{userpage}}

{{Ambox
| type  = content
| image = [[Image:Question book-new.svg|50x40px]]
| text  = This page '''needs absolutely NO additional [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|citations]] for [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verification]].'''<br /><small>Please help improve Wikipedia by refraining from adding the <nowiki>{{refimprove}}</nowiki> template to articles that have fewer than one citation per sentence! Source material shouldn't be limited to items obtained only through a quick Google search; paper publications, even those not readily available to a snotty bureaucrat, should also count!</small>
}}

{{Wstress3d|6.5||Why bother?|left}}

== '''NO SPAM!''' ==
I am not interested in a meetup that happens to be in my state. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

== Editorial Comment ==
Over the past few years, it seems that there has been a push amongst the "elite" (''i.e.'', those who are able to use Wikipedia for more than a few minutes every day, and are able thusly to control what is considered "consensus") that "sourced" material (''i.e.'', material for which there is a valid source '''available on the Internet''', not anywhere else) is of utmost importance. These people love adding "[citation needed]" marks and templates saying that every article needs some sort of additional references, or that the references are incorrect, or some such nonsense. I've seen some of these boxes dating back to 2010. One of my own edits, dealing with the pre-electronic Milton Bradley Battleship game, was reverted without mercy because it was "unsourced." The fact that I have the game in my possession and could cite the instructions did not matter in the slightest, since someone else didn't have access to those instructions.

In these same articles, though, I see grammar that probably comes from someone who is a non-native English speaker, spelling that was never checked in the slightest, and random capitalization (or lack thereof) that makes reading the article, let along obtaining any valid information from it, next to impossible. The writing style appears juvenile, and the improper spelling even more so.

The credibility of Wikipedia has never been the best because of its open-editing idea that has always been one of its strengths. I guess some people believe that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|"verifiability"]] lends to credibility, but proper editing of the articles does not. I'm sorry, but the poor phrasings of more articles than I wish to list here (but am tempted to), not to mention self-contradictory articles or articles that contradict other articles, is the more important source of credibility for most people.

I<!--{{POV-statement}} begin-->{{Fix
| link  = Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
| title = This statement is possibly biased.
| text  = neutrality
| post-text = is disputed
| date  = 
}}<!--{{POV-statement}} end--> suppose<!--{{Weasel-inline}} begin-->{{Fix
| link  = Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
| text  = weasel&nbsp;words
| title = Who says this?
| date  = 
}}<!--{{Weasel-inline}} end--> every<!--{{Quantify}} begin-->{{Fix
| link  = Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
| text  = quantify
| class = noprint Template-Fact
| title = This term requires quantification.
| date  = 
}}<!--{{Quantify}} end--> sentence{{Citation needed| date=September 2013}} should<!--{{Vague}} begin-->{{Fix
| link  = Wikipedia:Vagueness
| text  = vague
| title = You can help — 
| date  = 
}}<!--{{Vague}} end--> look{{Examples| date=September 2013}} like<!--{{Dubious}} begin-->{{Fix
| link  = Wikipedia:Disputed statement
| text  = dubious
| post-text = 
| title = The material near this tag is possibly inaccurate or nonfactual.
| date  = 
}}<!--{{Dubious}} end--> this<!--{{According to whom}} begin-->{{Fix-span
| content = 
| link  = Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
| text  = according to whom?
| title = The material near this tag may use weasel words or too-vague attribution.
| span-class = citation-needed-content
| date  = 
}}<!--{{According to whom}} end-->.

This particular wiki-disease has become commonplace amongst wikis. I used to be involved frequently in several wikis. Now I have completely abandoned one project, and until this writing have restricted my edits here to proofreading. I now choose to leave even that. Until the administrators, bureaucrats, and other "lords" of Wikipedia choose to issue a public apology to '''every! single! user!''' of Wikipedia, and choose to eradicate many of the "sources needed" boxes that clutter and deface too many articles, I hereby '''<big>REFUSE</big>''' to perform any further edits on any Wikimedia Foundation wiki.

This mess is in their hands. I have better things to do.

== And, Finally ==

'''I SUPPORT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!!'''