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 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]]
--
http://www.mindspillage.net *** IM: LucidWaking
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams