User:Imagimirrorme

I most certainly see opportunity for improvement regarding Wikipedia's verifiability policy. It obviously serves its purpose, as my perspective is thus: The information in the source books, came from the human. The human put that information in the book, so to say that the ACTUAL source of information is not reputable in and of itself is, well...questionable. I say this knowing that I, myself contain a plethora of knowledge gained first hand that may not be "verifiable" but is certainly demonstrable. Demonstrable information speaks for itself, if it works...well, you just don't need someone to tell you it works. Also, being progressive, NEW information as it is evolving, is not verifiable. Which brings me to conclude, just now, that this may be more a place for the past, than the leading edge. Which is fine. I don't claim to have your solution, it is just that having not other reason to create a user account than providence itself, I let my objections express and heretofore I shall offer a clean mirror in this regard.