I am new to editing Wikipedia and had never previously registered. I did not realise this was even a requirement to register in order to make changes to an entry. I was blocked after trying to make several edits to the page. I was unaware that editing a page was somehow an offense worth blocking considering that there is an "edit this page" tab at the top of the entry and that is what I was doing - editing the page. Wikipedia should remove the "edit this page" link for unregistered users if that is not what it is for.
I have been accused of "vandalism" and blocked:
"Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Brian0918. The reason given is this: numerous repeated vandalisms You can email Brian0918 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block..."
Please take a look at my edits for "pornography" as of 5/30/05. I don't consider that my edits were "vandalism" nor do I believe that they meet Wikipedia definition given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism
"for example someone replacing the entire page with profanity, or adding a page with useless or offensive content."
I did NOT replace the entire page, use profanity, or add "useless" or "offensive" content. I added a feminist perspective which I considered sorely lacking on the site entry and I deleted content that I thought was offensive. If that is considered useless or offensive content then Wikipedia had better check its own "neutral point of view".
Also, as I am completely new to editing on Wikipedia, I was unaware of the "neutral point of view" policy until later and I don't consider the entry that I was trying to edit to have been "neutral" as it was before I started to even edit it.
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".
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.
advert wrote:
I did not realise this was even a requirement to register in order to make changes to an entry.
There isn't such a requirement.
I was unaware that editing a page was somehow an offense worth blocking
It isn't.
I have been accused of "vandalism" and blocked:
People have attempted to communicate with you on your IP's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:165.247.46.74
In particular, they have attempted to point out to you the NPOV policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV
You were only blocked for one week (personally I would have thought 24 hours would be more appropriate), so don't get too worked up over it. Read the NPOV policy and other policies, and please feel free to continue editing within these guidelines once your block expires.
Greetings, Timwi
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]]