My complaint about being blocked. Friday, 16 December 05 Messieurs, I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked from Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified. My IP address is 83.205.136.21. My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I got blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message : "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg. The reason given is: revert sockpuppet" Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single line : "You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting articles; that is what your edits consist of. Jay. " Today, I see to my dismay that a new 24hours blocking has been auto-generated. I'm writing here to argue my case: By the time of the 'block', my contributions to Wikipedia totalled to only. two. One last Sunday, one Wednesday. In no way this can be seen as a basis for a trend. Two occurrences cannot be held as statistical. I argue that my contributions, numbering to only two, simply didn't "consist of" any behavioural pattern. Mr Jayjg writes that I "appear" . "created solely for the purpose". based on a total of only two occurrences, hardly a basis for purpose guesses or appearance lectures. The line of Jayjg consists solely of his own guessings on invented trends. More so, trends and fashions, guessed or not, shouldn't come into play when it comes to Wikipedia editions or users' accesses. Denis Diderot boasted loud enough about it : encyclopaedias are not hair-dressers' salons. Hurt as any innocent blocked user should be, I acknowledge here challengeable Ancient Régîme ways, péroraisons, and short-lived privilege abuses. However if explanations for my sole pair of independent editions may help, to erase the wrongful impression of - 'award-winning' - Jayjg, here they are: Both related to the file titled "Israel Shamir" (actually, early on Sunday and before creating an account and logging in, I made an edit on American WW2 aircraft production, deleting post-war F-86 Sabre from the list, making a total of 3 contributions in all from my PC, and certainly not 'revert sockpuppetting'.) Both were reverts. After a lengthy read of the controversies in the correspondent 'talk' page, I viewed the introduction paragraph of 'JohD' as already demonstrated as superior to the version seemingly endlessly reverted-to by a couple of Wikipedians. Also, the behaviour of these few Wikipedians - Jayjg and Denis Diderot (??!!!) - had been exposed as being on the verge of vandalism, according to Wiki guidelines. My attitude has therefore been that 'the case is closed', that it's all well written and argued about in the talk page. There only remains to Wikipedia to let it show. My 'comments' just said that. A logical conclusion of the whole discussion page, as it reads. Therefore reverting was the minimal - yet justified - intervention, in order to let the hopefully virtuous Wikipedia process move on. So please do not be surprised, do not imagine hooliganism, if I simply feel very little need to invent some weak literature of mine and then to pour-in my low-key argumentation in endless talk pages, just to try to re-argue already well stated points. Hence the behaviour of those two first edits. "See talk" could have been a dryer comment for these. Impressions, however corrected, shouldn't come into argumentation here. But humans always appreciate ! Please 'unblock' me at once. l'Omnivore Sobriquet