User talk:Guitarradio

November 2009

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Nat Turner, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Turner

Have you read the articles about slave rebellions, serial killers, and spree killers yet? Can you tell the difference, and do you understand that Nat Turner was neither a serial killer nor a spree killer, but the leader of a slave insurrection? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did lead a slave insurrection, but in the process he was found guilty in a court of law and punished for the murder of 55 people, which history proves that he did. You can argue Timothy McVeigh was leading an insurrection, but was convicted of murder during his insurrection. Leading an insurrection doesn't mean the actions you commit aren't other legal offenses.

He was convicted of murdering 55 people? Do you have a reliable source for that? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nat Turner. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't given a good reason for reverting the article, except inexplicable saying he wasn't a serial or spree killer when in fact he was. It's historical fact that he killed those people in a short period of time which makes him a spree killer. If you can explain that he in fact did not kill those people and was not convicted of it, than I will be fine with the reverts. Nobody has a problem with it except you because you have a point of view on the matter. You are simply throwing your authority around even though I made accurate edits to this page, because other spree and serial killers, even if they were "fighting for their cause" like Nat Turner was, have that label in the opening paragraph.

I've explained both here and at Talk:Nat Turner why you're wrong. The leader of an armed insurrection isn't a spree killer any more than a general is a mass murderer. Show me a general whose biography describes him as a mass murderer and we can continue this discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man you truly have a warped way of thinking. So is every mass murder just the leader of an armed insurrection? If a white guy goes killing blacks in retribution of affirmative action is he a hate criminal serial killer or the leader of a insurrection to overthrow certain government policies? I pointed out Timothy McVeigh and you won't respond to it. Nat Tuner was not fighting against an army, he was executing innocent men, women, and children. Usually the other side has to be fighting back for it to be considered a battle. When he goes in a cuts little kids heads off that is just brutal murder, not an "armed insurrection." It's utterly astounding that you feel the need to uphold the "honor" of serial killers like Nat Turner. What's funny is that you know he's a serial killer, but you want to dupe people by censoring an honest and accurate description of a convicted killer, who as the article says was "tried, convicted, and executed."

WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH

Have you found a single reliable source that refers to Nat Turner as a spree killer? If not, you're engaging in original research—specifically synthesis—something that's against policy.

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies before you continue your silliness. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]