I have been graced with the following action: I am convinced it's below the dignity of anyone put in this position, to argue over the understanding of "vandalism" and over Wikipedia's need (or alleged lack of need) of articles on World Revolution and Fall of Communism; and I do not think it is up to me to discuss the interpretation of your blocking policy -- but maybe it would be in your interest to discuss it? Maybe someone who take, or at least took, his or her engagement in Wikipedia somewhat seriously is receiving this mailinglist. I do however question if actions and a policy that are blatantly contrary to how Wikipedia presents itself to the World Wide Web can be in the interest of a serious project. Like after the non-accepted corrections I tried to make April 10th this year, I can't help a resulting impression of this Wikipedia being or becoming more of a playground for ignorant but maybe power-intoxicated systops than a field for serious additions to an open- source encyclopedia.

I have been graced with the following action: >The reason given is this: >repeated vandalization by adding nonesistant world revolution link to a dozen articles.