User talk:Swiftosis: Difference between revisions

Hello, Swiftosis!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 10:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Leo Frank are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Leo Frank. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We rarely use blogs etc as sources. Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Your other source was not reliably published either. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doug, I appreciate you pointing these things out to me. They are helpful indeed. I am upset that this Leo Frank article has, even after much resistance, kept the extremely untrue sentence at the beginning of this first paragraph. I fail to see how a CNN article is considered reliably published whilst a well-researched article, with the original source material there to back it up, is not. Why do you allow such wildly inaccurate and outright lies to stay posted? This is not some inconsequential article. By allowing it to stay up, all of Wikipedia is cheapened and discredited. Anybody who fairly looks at the trial of Leo Frank will know he is guilty. There has been so much misinformation over the last 100+ years. But, as the 2nd source I gave shows, the original source material has been uploaded to the internet and can be accessed be anybody. If you read through it you will understand the trial against Leo Frank was a slam dunk and at no time did the evidence.... both concrete and circumstantial of which there was much of both... held any water with the Jury.

Again, I appreciate you reaching out to help me. I thank you for that. However, I implore you to please assist me and the community to set this right. It is a flagrant example of select users wielding power far beyond than the system is intended to allow them, and therefore a stain on Wikipedia's reputation now and in the future. Swiftosis (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]