Content deleted Content added
Laser brain (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 26:
:::: Your edits reveal an obvious bias toward softening Turner's image and role in the crime and marginalizing the victim. If you honestly believe you are engaging in "neutral truthful editing", you are not. I would advise you to disengage from that article and select topics that have nothing to do with gender-based controversies. Deliberately or not, I don't believe you are capable of editing neutrally in that topic area. The matter is not up for debate. If you continue to make such edit there or at related articles, you will be blocked. You will be able to appeal to [[WP:AE]] in that case. --[[User:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">'''Laser brain'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]] 19:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
{{Ping|laser brain}} so you are threatening to make a unilateral choice to block me if I make any edit whatsoever there?
My edits to people v. Turner are not gender based. I would be making then same ones if Brock was Bailey or Emily was Elmer. Both sexes can be drunk. Both sexes have fingers. Both sexes can be penetrated without consent.
I don't see how you can twist this to be about gender. This is also a Male v. Males conflict in terms of the court case given that the first two witnesses for the prosecution were the male Swedish exchange doctorate students out cycling. Or female v female since Brock's girlfriend was used as a character witness.
Equally stating both were drunk in the opening is not softening his image any more than doing so later in the article does. If anything the omission of his drunkenness in the lede is suspicious in the other direction.
I am not interested in marginalizing Emily Doe, just stating known facts in their known context. It is not our job to engage in original research and synthesize conclusions. I want to verify that we are not doing that or giving undue weight to sources which do so over those that don't.
I don't think it is right for you to make personal attacks speculating I have dishonest motives about this article. You are interfering with the actual discussion of references and case details here.
Your objections to my edits should necessarily address specifics instead of broad generalizations you speculate just because impartiality doesn't seem adequately anti-Brock to you.
As an admin do you enjoy carte Blanche in launching ad hominem attacks like this? Why do you call me a softener for wanting to say they were both drunk instead of calling those who only want to say she was drunk hardeners?
What is the "marginalize" accusation based in? Wanting information about her conciousness in context is not doing that. Someone posited in thr tslk page that a medical professional made that conclusion so i will folloe up by asking who/when.
I wilk try harder to have more extensive talk page attempts to consolidate ideas prior to making more extensive edits there.
What I.ask is if you could simply clarify your objections to me. Assume I may be capable of improving if I am wrong. Assume you may also be capable of erring in judgment.
Are you not interested in proactive resolution? Are you biding up examples only to use against me if I appeal an action you take, but not willing to use them to educate me now?
I will deter direct editing (but not talk) long enough for you to make better explanations and observations about this article. If you have enough specifics to argue a case, you won't have much of one if it is clear you made minimal effort to communicate those specifics. [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze#top|talk]]) 08:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
| |||