User talk:Swiftosis

Welcome!

Hello, Swiftosis!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

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]

August 2023

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]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Leo Frank, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please specify what was inappropriate on the talk page? I understand that the content is to be commented on. Going forward I will do this and refrain from commenting on the contributors. However, is there something else you are referring to? I really appreciate the help, I am simply trying to correct a flagrant abuse of the system. I must therefore work within the guidelines to do so. Swiftosis (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think that this blatantly antisemitic edit is acceptable then I don't know what to tell you, but I think that you know exactly what is wrong with it. I am amazed that you were not blocked on the spot but it seems that you have (very generously!) been given one last chance. Please do not squander it by pretending to be dumb. You must not speculate about the religion or ethnicity of your fellow editors. You must not cast aspersions on your fellow editors based on your suppositions about their religions or ethnicities. This is not news to you. You already know this. Continued sealioning here is also very likely to be considered disruptive. DanielRigal (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but to be clear I am not sealioning nor am I casting aspersions. I am however, still learning the ins and outs of wikipedia and am grateful that I have not been banned. Lastly, though poorly worded, my point is that we cannot simply chalk up a source as anti-semitic because it gives concrete reasons supporting Frank's guilt. Nor can we blanket every source as being Jewish that finds Frank's conviction incorrect. It is to be argued on the merits of the information itself with ethnicity being considered last, if at all. Swiftosis (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Leo Frank. Using the phrase "people of the same ethnicity" as a way to avoid saying "Jews" in order to disguise antisemitism is the last straw. Stop it. Stop it now! DanielRigal (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS

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]

@Swiftosis Wikipedia is not a forum to RightGreat Wrongs. We can't use websites that aren't reliably published by our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. If you think your source meets that criteria, go to WP:RSN. But if you are right, then it should be trivial to find reliably published sources meeting our criteria. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your point. You give credence to a CNN article which quotes a senile old man, but not recent researcher who uses the source material? Please explain. This is so wrong... Swiftosis (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNN doesn't say anyone is senile. Doug Weller talk 06:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the links you have provided...

"When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint"

The CNN article is written by a political agent who happens to be Jewish. Just like the other source who's name is Dinnerstein and is unapologetically Jewish just the same. This is fine of course, except that the consensus seems to reside mainly with Jewish sources. All other sources, including the 2nd link I provided for you, are far and beyond more reliable and objective than either of the ones used to justify that heinous sentence in the Leo Frank article. Am I making any sense to you here? Or will you just link me more articles which if anything back my points up even more. I don't get it. Are you trying to be fair here or have you decided for sure which camp you are in and that is that? Swiftosis (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this Moses Jacobs? I see no evidence on Google that would support the idea he is someone we would use even if reliably sourced, which of course his article isn't. And a post on Twithttps://www.britannica.com/story/100-years-since-the-death-of-leo-frank]ter doesn't establish a consensus. [1] and [2] are better. Doug Weller talk 06:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Swiftosis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to you today as a concerned user and a dedicated Wikipedia contributor who has found themselves blocked from editing on this platform. I understand the importance of maintaining a respectful and neutral tone on Wikipedia, and I would like to appeal for the opportunity to be unblocked and continue contributing constructively to the community.

First and foremost, I want to emphasize that my intentions have always been grounded in a genuine desire to uphold Wikipedia's mission: to provide accurate and unbiased information to people all over the world. I have never sought to promote or endorse any form of bigotry, racism, or discriminatory ideas. In fact, my sole aim has consistently been to ensure that Wikipedia's content is presented in the most neutral and accurate way possible.

I fully acknowledge that, as a new user, I may not have always chosen the best words to convey my thoughts. My language may have, at times, been poor or ambiguous, which could have led to misunderstandings. I am committed to improving in this regard and have been actively learning the ropes of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I am genuinely grateful for the guidance and support I have received from other contributors, and I value the collaborative nature of this platform.

Furthermore, I want to make it absolutely clear that any accusations of racism are categorically incorrect. My attempts to clarify certain topics may have appeared challenging in tone, but I have never, under any circumstances, sought to propagate hateful ideas or target any group with malice.

I firmly believe in Wikipedia's potential to provide information that can be read and understood by anyone in the world without causing offense. My goal has always been to contribute to this ideal, ensuring that the content remains informative and respectful to all readers. I am dedicated to creating a welcoming and inclusive environment on Wikipedia for everyone.

In conclusion, I respectfully request the opportunity to be unblocked on Wikipedia, with the assurance that I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for neutral and respectful content. I am eager to continue my contributions and work collaboratively with the community to maintain Wikipedia as a reliable and unbiased source of knowledge.

Thank you for considering my appeal, and I look forward to the possibility of once again contributing positively to this valuable platform.

Sincerely, Swiftosis (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am summarily declining this request as it was written with an AI. We want to hear from you, not an AI, as you are the one that is blocked. Please write a request in your own words. For more information about how to write a request likely to be accepted, please see the unblock appeals guide. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To any Admin considering this, including User:Acroterion, I dropped this into [3] GPTzero to check if it was AI generated and got a score of 98%. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I can tell :) but thanks for the heads up. Always a good idea in case I (or anyone) misses it ourselves. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Swiftosis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You are hearing from me... just in a more digestible form. Still though, I can absolutely understand the need for something of this sort to be enunciated in one's own words. Deception was not intended by using AI... clearly, it is AI, and I would not insult the intelligence of the users here to claim otherwise. After reviewing the link you provided I believe the following adequately propounds the requirements. Minor adjustments have been made to better fit them, though 90% of this is verbatim what was fed into the AI generator. I do hope it will suffice, though it is not as easily digested so-to-speak. On a last minor unrelated point....Doug has been helpful, understanding, & fair throughout everything... and I wanted to sincerely thank him for that - regardless of the outcome here. ::Write a formal medium length essay as to why I should be as a concerned user and misunderstood person be unblocked on Wikipedia. State that my points were largely misunderstood. I never condoned/sought to any bigoted, racist, or further any type of discriminatory ideas or feelings. My only aim was to have the record stated in the most neutral and accurate way possible. Moreover, I sought to live up to the ideals of an accurate wikipedia. I want wikipedia to be if not 100% agreeable on the content then 100% agreeable on the tone of the content. In other words, my edits are always meant to be able to be read by anybody in the world and not offend them in the slightest... with the point itself potentially being disagreed with. I admit, my choice of words in some cases was poor and should have been chosen better. As a new user, I was and still am to some degree learning the ropes and am very grateful for any and all help. FInally, I feel as though I have been misalinged by some early on in the discussion and would like to clearly and emphatically state that any charges of racism are categorically incorrect. Where I attempt to clear muddy waters.... I may at times have struggled to make in a neutral & respectful tone, never ever did I further hateful ideas or other bad omens towards any group. ::I cleaned it up a bit with grammar and such but that is 95% the same exact thing which I fed into the AI. Swiftosis (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not adequately addressed the incredibly serious problems with your edits and nothing here convinces me your edits would be almost completely different if unblocked. Yamla (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What edits are you referring to? I have not edited anything Please elaborate. Also, what in particular are you referring to when you say "incredibly serious"? What exactly do you want to hear? I have admitted to poor word choice that inadequately elucidated the ideals I was trying to convey. Admittedly, after reading them over, I see how they can be misinterpreted. I deny any and all charges that there was anything hateful however, as I have stated before. I do not think I am getting a fair shake here, this is sad.

You do realise that we can all see the warnings and clarifications on this very page detailing the exact problems with your edits, right? You do realise that everybody can see all the contributions made on this account just by clicking "User contributions", right? You do realise that we are not completely stupid, right?

There is absolutely no path to an unblock by pretending not to understand this. Even if we were somehow stupid enough to believe that you genuinely had no idea that you were being antisemitic that wouldn't help you. We have a policy, WP:CIR, which you would then fall foul of because anybody lacking the basic comprehension skills required to understand the problem here would be considered too incompetent to be able to edit Wikipedia constructively.

You do realise that you are very likely to have your access to edit even this User Talk page removed if you continue to pretend not to understand what you did wrong, right? Wikipedia is not a playground but it is clear that you are treating it as such by playing dumb just to see how much of our time you can waste. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Swiftosis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can someone please explain EXACTLY what the issue is regarding my being blocked? Can I get a fair shake by an admin? Swiftosis (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Imagine defending a child rapist murderer so staunchly. What an embarrassment." After that comment, now removed, by you not only am I declining this, but also removing talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

But you are getting a fair shake. User:DanielRigal is, sadly, right. Your claim that Jessica Ravitz is a political agent (evidently because she's Jewish) is evidence of that. Doug Weller talk 08:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I said she is a political agent because she herself has described herself as such. Her ethnicity has nothing to do with that claim. I did point out that it is entirely possible that folks who share the same ethnicity as someone who has been convicted of such a heinous crime invariably have an invested interest in claiming their innocence. How does a statement like that mean that I am an inescapable anti-Semitic trole I haven't a clue.

In any case, we need WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.DanielRigal (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]