"

 You bet! I indeed am frustrated disappointed or should I disheartened and disgusted. Not because of the block though. It's because of the spiteful, hateful and downright vindictive behaviour some people have in wikipedia and with profound connivance of some administrators even. Mihaiam is a sock of Edward321 just look at their contributions for past 24 hours. Why should I be involved be anymore editing (although I really want to) when I know that some daft hater may simply revert ALL of them without caring much about silly things like justification or consequence and I will be blocked as a result? I shouldn't be involved. Wikipedia, like any other bureaucracy, is ruled by bullies (including some administrators). However, the real bureaucracies do give you a chance to settle the dispute in court or police station. And at least you can afford to not be so helpless about it. Here my edits were labelled as propaganda (implying that I'm a propagandist) after all my edits were rashly reverted (although they had the chance to simply modify inaccuracies with good sources, they chose to delete the whole section), nothing was done and because nothing was done, the reversion of my edits only accelerated (now, if not all, most of my edits are entirely reverted).  Then that genius John wrote on my talk-page  I'm edit-warring? I usually specifically mention (no edit-war intended) after my edit, in description. My friggin edits are getting reverted and I'm the one he deemed to be the edit-warrior? Come on now, will you. You don't want to help me. Frankly, I don't know what you want. Have a beautiful time here at the wikipedia. Humanity is withering away much faster here at the wikipedia than in the real world. The real world is sick in my view. But, in comparison to the demented arrangement here at wikipediaBecause here it every time sometimes  gratuitously comes down to majority of consensus, no matter how ignorant and/or prejudiced and/or oblivious the involved editors are about the topic at hand, their views still count. That's not a very efficient way, that is rather a crazy medieval way of discerning what's reliable and what's not. And thus, implies that minority is always wrong and majority is always correct. That's fundamentally incorrect., real world seems like a much better place to dwellAlthough I concede that some (few) of my sources too were questionable and faced justified skepticism, I don't think that it necessitated a whole reversion. Slight modifications would have worked just fine.. Thank God science doesn't progress like that in real world.  (Talk?)  

Note:
"