User talk:Vivian Goldblum94

March 2021
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Strom Thurmond. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Meters (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It was not an affair. The word choice you are using is inaccurate. You need to update the page I will be removing the word affair. The word affair implies consent. Please look up the word in the dictionary. That is not my opinion that is the incorrect choice of word for what happend between Thurmond and the alleged victim. Vivian Goldblum94 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't add that wording. I simply objected to your attempt to change it to "alleged statutory rape". If you add that again I will remove it again and give you a higher level warning. Meters (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

All I know is do NOT add the word affair when sex with a minor is alleged. This is a completely disgusting thing and you should've corrected before I had to. Not really sure what your job is, since an "affair" is also implying a non-neutral stance. By saying the minor gave her consent to having sex with her employer. You may want to spend some time with a dictionary to understand the meaning of neutral and do your job better instead of arguing with me. I've corrected the title and it's an accurate portrayal of this situation. Not sure how you allowed that word in there. And if I see it again I will report you and your defense of an alleged crime. Work on your critical thinking skills, please! Vivian Goldblum94 (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Vivian Goldblum94. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Saying that I was defending a crime is a personal attack. Again, I did not make that edit. I undid your completely inappropriate change to "alleged statutory rape". I did not undo your removal of the word "affair", so don't try to blame me for what was in the article. You might as well try to blame the the hundreds of thousands of other Wikipedia editors who also didn't remove that word while you are at it.'' Meters (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Also who typed the "affair" after I corrected it earlier today? Are you saying you did? Because from your last comment it sounds like you did try to add that word after I made my 1st correction. Its clear this site needs much more oversight because you all are seriously NOT doing a competent job. Vivian Goldblum94 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Listen, heres the deal: Do better. Just like you spent time calling my correction "completely inappropriate" you also could've spent time making sure the article was an accurate portrayal of events and you didn't. Inaction is just another form of complicit behavior. I find it very curious you're so quick to undo what I edited but you didnt take that same time to remove the word yourself. Which you could've done. Wonder why you didnt do that? You know whats really completely inappropriate? A 23 year old man allegedly sexually assualting a 15/16 girl who also happens to be his employee. Thats completely inappropriate. Incase you didn't know. Thanks for solidifying my original point which is that all you contributors need to do better. Take care and have a good evening! Vivian Goldblum94 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Look at the diffs. I undid your edit when you replaced "affair" with "alleged statutory rape". That was an unsourced POV edit on your part. The article does not contain any evidence that he was charged with statutory rape, or that it was alleged. Even if it did, your header would not have been appropriate. I did not object to your simple removal of the word "affair" in your second edit, and I did not undo that edit. I suggest that you read the links I pointed you to (WP:POV and WP:NPA) and read WP:RS and MOS:HEADINGS too. MOS:Headings states that headings must also follow the rules for article names (see MOS:AT, WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:POVNAMING). Now please drop this.
 * If you want to blame someone, try blaming the editor who added the header in early February as part of extensive set of edits. I'm sure it was meant in good faith, but sometimes things get missed. I agree with your removal of "affair" and I've also removed some additional non-neutral speculative wording by the same editor. Meters (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)