Correction, I was blocked because you made allegations you were not even remotely able to substantiate in the subsequent discussion. "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." applies here. If I sticked to that rule, I would need to start an investigation on this faked block and its violation resulting in a sanction against you, but this just would be another skirmish that would distract the original need - to free this article of biased and one-sided passages. A prime example is the Discovery section that actually consist of pointing out unpreparedness and to say in a roundabout way that Scott would be the only one to blame for that, no mention that he wasn't even involved in all aspects of the preparation and that contemporaries like Hugh Robert Mill, librarian of the Royal Geographical Society said Scott"if anyone, could bring order out of the chaos which had overtaken the plans and preparations".. Concealing positive statements like this and only pointing out things diminuishing Scott's achievements is not only embezzling to the reader but greatly contradicts the requirements of neutrality in a encyclopaedic context. The same goes for the embarassingly biased and ashamedly one-sided Controversies article (that deliberately tells not even half of the whole story and intentionally conceals all arguments from the other side of the spectrum...). This article hadn't been linked for ages, and out of some emotional situation, he recently just added it to the Main Scott article, despite its violations of neutrality and biasedness. The most logic thing to not let this article's neutrality be further undermined, I removed the link. Ruhrfisch fought tooth and nails to prevent me from doing this (which once again shows that he's not interested in adding any positive aspects concerning the person Robert Falcon Scott whatsoever and tries with a vengeance to prevent anyone from doing so. It is no accident that from my edits, which included mentioning aspects of misfortune like the extraordinarily base character of some of the ponies, comments about the man-hauling or statements from contemorary explorers, all of these have been removed by this single user! And then he even has the nerve to accuse me of "disruptive editing"... ROFL. And while I'm blocked he reverts another 3 edits of mine without any justification whatsoever or opening a discussion or anything? I don't see how this is to be called either "fair-minded", "polite", correct, neutral or whatsoever. These are acts of impudence, aim at concealing facts and greatly undermine this article's neutrality and encyclopedic value.  
And Ruhrfisch, no, what you explained to me, "that the undo button had completely disappeared because of a conflict with another edit" is not true, as I have been told by Wikipedia Foundation that Undo buttons does not disappear at all, regardless whether there's a conflict or not. You just can't click it but it stays...