User talk:Redditor132

Welcome!

Hello, Redditor132, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to John and Lorena Bobbitt does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the NPOV guidelines. My question is if you've read them since you're keen on keeping an inflammatory feminist talking point at the front of the article instead of simply allowing the facts of the case to be stated. I hope you reply to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redditor132 (talk • contribs)

How in the world do you think this personal rant of yours belongs in the lead or in the article at all? It's your personal ranting. The "was acquitted after receiving feminist support" wording is your wording. It is not in the sources. Same goes for your "Subsequently she became a national icon for women and is celebrated publicly to this day" wording. Also see WP:Claim. And WP:Lead is clear about what belongs in the lead. The lead should summarize the article, not include material not covered lower or random quotes. If you read our WP:NPOV policy at all, you don't understand it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how a neutral stating of the facts of the case constitute a "rant". She was in fact acquitted due to widespread feminist protests and support which did influence the jury, similar to the African American support in the OJ Simpson trial. This is not a "rant" but just the facts of the case. A "rant" would be stating that "an evil abusive jealous woman got away with mutilation because of societal misandry, and the victim was blamed instead". But I didn't write that. I simply wrote what happened in the case and provided a credible source (Which you likely haven't read). What she herself said was the reason for the mutilation on the night she was arrested does have its place in the summary, as does the motivation for any crime in a Wikipedia article.

The original is clearly not NPOV and I can probably guess you will claim that it is.

December 2019

Your recent editing history at John and Lorena Bobbitt 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at John and Lorena Bobbitt

Please see the closing comment of your edit warring report. See also the advice left for you by User:Ponyo in that report. You are risking a block if you try to make another revert, without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page for your change. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left you a clear warning regarding your inappropriate comments here. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to get offended by everything and anything. Just tell me that if I don't agree with you on cheering for Lorena Bobbitt then you will ban me. I appreciate honesty.Redditor132 (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing. The editing on the Bobbitt article wasn't acceptable, and this is worse, just doubling down on that problem.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked (and you will need to explain how you are going to change your editing practices), please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly about my discussion comment warranted a block? And why does everyone refuse to even discuss my neutral factual edit but immediately jump to "block him! Block him now!" instead?