User talk:BryanEAustin

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, BryanEAustin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sauser P6E

Thanks for your edits to this page, but note that your addition was not encyclopedic in nature and has been reverted by another editor. It is probably worth noting that we don't accept original research or references that are self-published on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure as to what you mean. How can they be changed to meet your standards. This is not exactly a user friendly website. How can a person not except my first hand information but yet can accept someone's second hand information that could be incorrect?

What came first, the chicken or the egg? BryanEAustin (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your "first hand" information is not reliable. Second hand information is accepted if it comes from a reliable source, like a publication that meets certain criteria. If you want to change your data so that it becomes reliable as per Wikipedia standards you need to get it published somewhere, and then also have someone else put it in, not you. You are clearly unbiased about things you are directly involved in, that's another no-no.

Writing a Wikipedia article is just like writing an essay, you need sources and they can't be your crazy uncle. You have to realize here, that like the academic world that the sourcing system is based on, no one knows you, no one has any reason to trust you or your "first hand" information as being correct. And that isn't personal, we trust websites like Hornady until they show themselves to be untrustworthy. It is how the world generally operates for gathering accurate information (CNN for instance, which has to have a certain number of sources for an article to hold up to journalistic integrity standards) and seperating that from inaccurate information (like say Alex Jones with no sources, or using CNN as a source and drawing a conclusion from their article that is hard to support with the little facts he has). 142.120.125.127 (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What 142.120.125.127 has written is basically correct. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. We only accept information in Wikipedia that has been published in reliable sources, which are generally publications with editorial oversight. The main reason we can't accept personal observations is that it is not verifiable, plus I guarantee that someone else will come along and say "I built one of these and you are wrong about everything". Which is why we rely on on verifiable, reliable sources. See also WP:NOTBLOG. If you want to include information from your own experiences than first it needs to published in a reliable third party source, like KitPlanes or some other publication, where it is subject to editorial review prior to publication. - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me! That is 100% Liberal thinking right there!!!BryanEAustin (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. The fact that Wikipedia does not accept unsourced, unpublished, unverifiable personal opinions as the basis for encyclopedia articles is somehow "liberal thinking"? I would say it is quite conservative in principle. But no matter, it is a longstanding policy here, to keep this as an encyclopedia and not a personal blog. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]