User talk:Sadturtl

April 2024
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Willondon,
 * I was a student at West Ranch and personally experienced these stories but they were never in the news for obvious reasons. I am also a current student at Notre Dame who again has personally experienced the things I mentioned in my changes. Thus, I don't see a need for a source. Sadturtl (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You certainly do need a source. Please see the guidance at Reliable sources. The way Wikipedia works, personal experience is not accepted to verify things or establish their notability. That is known as "original research". It may seem strange or wrong to you, but sourcing is required, and personal accounts are not considered reliable.  signed, Willondon (talk)  15:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If important stories are never shared or reported in the news, how does one expect to be educated on these stories? For example, my edit on the West Ranch High School page occurred when I was a student but was obviously never reported to the news because why would a high school want that bad publicity for its students and the lack of action it took? I think that these important stories need to be shared for those looking for more information. Sadturtl (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If important stories are never shared or reported in the news, how does one expect to be educated on these stories? Not at Wikipedia. I think that these important stories need to be shared But not at Wikipedia. The resource above (WP:RS) is the go-to document for policies on reliable sourcing. From there Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. It doesn't matter how true or important the information is, if it does not have a reliable source that supports it, it doesn't stay in. That's simply how it works.  signed, Willondon (talk)  16:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to talk to the person who sits above you in the power hierarchy and get a second opinion on these important stories. Thanks man! Sadturtl (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There's not much of a power hierarchy here. Editing is crowd-sourced from a community of editors such as yourself, and there are policies and guidelines that shape how it is edited. There is a group of administrators which are also given tools to block or curtail users from editing, to remove things that violate copyright or the rights of a living person, etc. You would appeal to them if you had a serious problem with an editor, or a group of edits that have been made. It's expected that before tasking an administrator with a decision, you first make every effort to resolve conflicts on "talk pages", either for an article or for a specific user. In a sense, the community is "the boss", so you may post questions at the "Teahouse" to get a broad range of input on how editing here works.  signed, Willondon (talk)  16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)