On 5/30/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
advert stated for the record:
I would like to be unblocked and be allowed to add a feminist perspective to the entry which I edited. I don't think the entry as it stands is "neutral".
Your edits were not vandalism, but they were not acceptable. Stating as a fact that "[p]ornography ... is the representation of the human body or [[human sexual behaviour]] mainly from a male supremacist perspective" is highly opinionated. That statement represents an extreme point of view that most editors and readers will not agree with and will quickly edit away.
Something along the lines of "many feminists feel that pornography represents a male supremacist perspective" would be slightly better, but would require a definition of "male supremacist perspective."
Also, we are not interested in your personal definitions of "pornography" and "erotica." If those definitions were created elsewhere, please provide references.
You may want to suggest changes on the article's talk page and ask for help in wording them so as to conform to the (obligatory) neutral point of view.
Looking at the page history and the block log, I am going to unblock this user. I don't think s/he was adequately warned, and we can't expect all newbies to know about restrictions on edit warring without being informed. (However, advert, you've now been informed: discuss big changes to contentious articles on talk, always, and more than 3 reverts in one day will merit a 24-hour block; further advice will be left on user talk page.)
I'm all for blocking deliberate vandals, but this appears to be editing made in good faith, just without knowledge of policy.
-Kat [[User:Mindspillage]]