"

So you think being rude in an edit summary is something you need to leave messages about, but reverting productive work without explanation is something you can happily ignore?  Seems to me that's a very warped perspective and implicitly condones what you claim not to condone.  If you believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and if you want it to get better, you should rethink your priorities.  Sure, criticise my rude edit summaries if you like, but to simply ignore destructive edits like User:EncMstr's is not helpful to anyone.
If Wikipedia is going to declare itself ""the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"", then anonymous editors should not be discriminated against.  In practice, they are, by you and many, many others.  The solution to that is not for me or anyone else to create accounts but for those who actively discriminate to stop doing so.  At least you've taken the time to have a civil discussion.  That courtesy is frequently not given.  From another IP address a couple of months ago I wrote an entire article of, I think, very high quality, lengthy, well referenced, comprehensive, etc, etc, and then got blocked after someone reverted something I did with no explanation, and I reverted back.  No-one said a word about the article I wrote - all I got in return was a bunch of snotty templates and a block, for trying to reinstate good work.  Things like that make me pretty contemptuous of the culture here, and I am very unlikely to start assuming good faith when bad faith is constantly assumed of me, simply because I don't have a username. 190.161.134.66  "