User talk:ThatGuyCade

Welcome!

Hi ThatGuyCade! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! TJRC (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

What ThatGuyCade (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you edit it still? ThatGuyCade (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to George Stinney. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at George Stinney. Lectrician2 (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It’s not commentary, Its just a fact. That’s what George said ThatGuyCade (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

No, you're inserting your own commentary concerning Stinney, without sources. That's not acceptable in any article in this encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Fuck you and fuck this website. Karma bouta hit you one day ThatGuyCade (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

George Stinney

Just letting you know that you’re 100% right in your edits on George Stinney’s page, but unfortunately the bigots on this site have won in this edit war multiple times. TheXuitts (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

And I've warned you for personal attacks. Anybody is welcome to open a discussion concerning the framing of Stinney's conviction on the article's talkpage. I've protected the article for a couple of days to keep ThatGuyCade from exceeding 3RR. Leaving deceptive edit summaries like "fixed typo" isn't a good look, but they're a new editor. Please review the talkpage discussions. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t know what to put to describe it so I just put fixed typo ThatGuyCade (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a short description of what you're doing and why, one line or so. In this particular case, the way Stinney was railroaded has been discussed extensively on the article talkpage, so it would be best to review those discussions, and their outcomes, and to propose changes there first. Just don't say "fixed typo" unless you really are fixing a genuine typo. Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks ThatGuyCade (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

But why are you changing it back though, my friend got confused by those and I don’t want others to be confused. The “affectively” is confusing and it just saying convicted doesn’t really show he is innocent and I just want people to think the wrong thing ThatGuyCade (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• DONT want people to think the wrong thing* sorry, typo ThatGuyCade (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem.The court didn't assert that he was innocent, only that his trial had been grossly unfair. The court noted that Stinney could in fact have been guilty, but the manner in which the original trial proceeded was a miscarriage of justice. That's why the article is careful to avoid explicit declarations of innocence, and why the word "effectively" is used. . Acroterion (talk)

True, but the murder was gory and George would have had at least 1 drop of blood on any of his clothes but they were all clean, but he was pretty much proven innocent even SOME of the Binicker/Thames family members believe he was innocent and wish they found the real killer ThatGuyCade (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

One of their grandpa's wished he could speak out but he thought they would kill him. ThatGuyCade (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

And the problem is when you don’t have Wrongfully convicted, when you search up who killed betty and Mary it says George did it ThatGuyCade (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

^ good point here, should be discussed further on the talkpage TheXuitts (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I know this isn’t an argument for changes in the article, but being blunt, anyone who actually thinks Stinney was guilty likely has an IQ of around 12. TheXuitts (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Our opinions concerning whether Stoney was guilty or not are of no consequence as far as WP is concerned. If you have source-based suggestions to make on the talkpage, please make them there. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The way its worded makes it sound like he was guilty and when you search up “Who ACTUALLY killed Marry Thames and Betty Binnicker” It just says “George Stinney jr” ThatGuyCade (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You mean on Google? You're going to get an awful lot of results from people who are OK with judicially-endorsed lynchings if you search using terms like that. The article has seen a fair amount of trouble from people with that kind of agenda, unfortunately. Since the investigation was so casual, I don't think it's a question that can ever really be answered now. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Why do you keep editing it, do you believe he was guilty? ThatGuyCade (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

George Stinney talk page

If you could visit the George Stinney talk page and express support for my proposal, it would be greatly appreciated. TheXuitts (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

? ThatGuyCade (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What should I write? ThatGuyCade (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)