Thank you for unblocking me. It's good to know that at least one admin has a sense of
fairness here. It is very frustrating as a newbie to be told to jump right in and to
"be bold!" with editing, but then to be blocked for not having known the rules.
I wasn't even aware beforehand that there was a "neutral point of view"
When I get a chance I'll try to read through the rules in order to understand how I
can be allowed to make changes to the parts which I don't think are at all
"neutral" in the entry as it was (even before I tried editing it).
From: Kat Walsh [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005, 4:41 PM
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked after making several edits - accused of
On 5/30/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:
advert stated for the record:
> I would like to be unblocked and be allowed to add a feminist perspective
the entry which I edited. I don't think the entry as it stands is
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
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.
*** IM: LucidWaking
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams
WikiEN-l mailing list