On Mon, 31 May 2004, Jim Kork wrote: Your response is misleading. Having taken a look at the Serdar Argic article, I note that you twice insisted on qualifying "Armenian Genocide" as "alleged", & when both of those changes were reverted, you blanked the article. The reasons you gave for this change was that without the word "alleged" the article was POV -- only this assertion, with no proof or evidence either at the Talk page for this article, nor at [[Talk:Armenian Genocide]]. (Incidentally you made 10 edits to the main Armenian Genocide page, which were removed every time, & you never discussed the reaons for your changes.) Also, you made 3 reversions to the [[Kemal Atatuerk]] article within 24 hours, which -- even if you had an account -- would result in having your account blocked. Uh, everybody except Turkish nationals (& perhaps even some of them) agree that it happened, about the approximate number of people it affected, From a quick glance at the history logs, your contributions was to misrepresent cited sources to reduce the number of victims. If you have access to a source that provides different numbers, you are welcome to add those figures; you are welcome to change verifiable numbers -- unless you can clearly show that they are misquoted, which you did not bother to do. I will concede one point about [[Armenian Genocide]]: I did not see an explanation for the Turkish POV. The article would be better if it were provided -- although it would need to be clearly identified as such. [snip] > ">It would also be easier to people to communicate with > >you if you created an account" > Maybe, but that shouldn't be an excuse to block my ip. The acts I detail above clearly show why you were blocked. But had you created an account, it would have added to your credibility. New editors often make mistakes out of ignorance, & creating an account on Wikipedia tells the rest of us that you are interested in doing more than making only a few, specific edits; by that simple act, you are showing that you want to contribute for a while, & it worth someone's time to work with you. > "When controversy erupts, it is > >necessary to discuss it, and it is near > >impossible to do that with an IP. Either make an > >account or let it go." > This I don't get much, what matters is that what we write, not our names, > our user names and such. The discussion takes place in the discussion pages, > oh by the way, the person who blocked me accused me of being Serdar Argic > long before blocking me. Clearly we disagree on certain things, but I didn't > know that wikipedia admins can use this difference as an excuse to block > people whenever they like. > It is also interesting that, you only welcome anonymous users for > non-controversial stuff. For controversial articles, their voices do not > count? Please, it is what we write, not who we are. Indeed, it depends exactly on what one writes. If I were to edit an article on the fictional J. Random Publicperson, to add "Publicperson is a jerk", & offer nothing more, I'd expect it be speedily reverted: I have made a claim, with no collaborating evidence or arguments for why I wrote this. However, if I wrote the same sentence, then added details such as he is known to have appeared drunk in public, made inappropriate sexual comments to his colleague's children, & squandered public funds to buy bauble-head dolls for his personal collection, some if not all of that text should remain in some form. And even better would be if I cited the journalist Busybody's book "The Embarassing Politician", which made all of these claims, or mentioned that Publicperson was indicted or arrested on these charges. Sometimes a non-anonymous editor can get away with making a contribution of the first example -- e.g., "Publicperson is a jerk", especially if the article is not on a controversial topic. But with any controversial topic, one has to make one's point as convincingly as possible. And from the record, speaking as someone who is entirely disinterested in the matter (I didn't even know that there was an article on Serdar Argic until now), I find you have failed to be convincing. Geoff