I just got told by "Community" and "Anonymous users" that "Your fascination with a porn star's penis is not relevant nor necessary for the answer".
I usually don't mind having my answers edited, and I certainly don't mind being asked to edit my answers, but self-righteous remarks like this one are way out of line. Who told these bluenoses that I am fascinated by Long Dong Silver's penis? That is slimy, slanderous, libelous, and uncalled for. Just because you (whatever cowardly anonymous user that made the change) have no sense of humor doesn't give you the right to cast aspersions on my character by making unsubstantiated moralistic judgments. All you had to say was "This doesn't seem appropriate for this site". But, no, you had to play God and tell me what you think of my sense of humor. Well, reverend, save your moral judgments for your private pulpit. If you want to do that, then identify yourself instead of hiding behind a burning bush.
And "Community" ought to be equally ashamed for being such an uncritical reader of English.
I'm perfectly happy to edit the remark out of the answer (I did it after rolling back your edit with the insulting comment), but no one here should have to put up with such self-righteousness. And the article I linked to was on Wikipedia, not Violet Blue's blog.
If you PC Language Police want to do this kind of thing, then at least be consistent about it and do it for everyone else's posts. This is what I complained about to Kit Fox last week when I said something like "in EL&U, we're a community of equals, but because of the hierarchical structure, some users are more equal than others".
Can we get rid of this zero-tolerance "Let's protect the little children who read this site" attitude? This is ELL and EL&U, not Captain Kangaroo.