"

OK...you all call my behavior 'aggressive,' but I consider it WP:BOLD. You all call my editing behavior 'uncivil,' but I just call it 'being vocal' about the removal of valid material from Wikipedia. I will refrain from using 'strong language' in edit summaries in the future, including capital letters. You say that: ""This is persistent and entrenched behavior on your part that you don't seem to understand or want to change after many warnings and two blocks""  I've never had any substantial warnings, only the two expedited blocks. You say that I should ""accept the rules"" when other editors are totally disregarding and/or misquoting them, or trying to pass off essays and guidelines as policy when they are not. The fact is that if someone is removing good/valid/sourced material from Wikipedia, I'm going to call them out on it. Any way that you put it, strong wording in edit summaries is not a valid reason to perma-block people, as short sentences like that can easily be taken out of context.

Regarding my claims of censorship and vandalism in the above-mentioned edit summaries: I'm not sure what else to call it if not censorship and vandalism...I suppose I could always call it ""the constant removal of valid categories/information from articles,"" but that would be whitewashing the issue. For whatever reason, entirely valid, relevant, and sourced material is consistently removed from many articles (Paul Wolfowitz, Ben Bernanke, Lewis Libby, others) by the same editors again and again, and after a while it just gets very old, ridiculous, and frustrating to have to keep inserting this valid information over and over. By the way: I consider the removal of valid material/categories from articles over and over again to be censorship and vandalism...don't you? Some kind-of phantom clause in WP:BLP is constantly cited to try to justify the removal of this information even though this information is currently found in thousands of other articles with no problem at all.

When I wrote ""Revery [sic] Jayjg's idiotic edit..."" in an edit summary for removing Category:Ethnic nationalism from the White nationalism article I only made that statement because the very first sentence of the article said ""White nationalism (WN) is a form of ethnic nationalism...""  thus the removal of said category seemed rather idiotic in my opinion since the first sentence of the article obviously confirmed that particular category. Jayjg then changed that first sentence (he provided no source for this edit) and removed the category. I never called Jayjg idiotic, only that particular edit.

Since everything I write on here seems to be misconstrued, taken the wrong way, and wrongfully considered 'uncivil' and/or 'aggressive' (what is and what is not 'civil' and 'aggressive' is highly POV and a matter of opinion, by the way), I plan to edit  and remove any and all information that could be considered 'offensive' or 'uncivil'  I am going to bring the page down to the basics.

Truthfully, I try my best to avoid getting caught up in all of these Wiki-politics, personal vendettas, petty edit wars, childish games, etc.; I am part of no group/cabal here, I stick to myself and mind my own business, and improve and expand Wikipedia as best I can. However, when I see factual edits constantly being reverted for no apparent reason (what I term censorship and vandalism) it tends to make me a bit angry, so I have no choice except to be vocal about it and hope that other good editors see what is happening and will begin to take action and discuss these issues. That's another thing...the complete and utter lack of discussion by these people, whether in edit summaries or on talk pages. I would like to discuss these issues (and I always try to leave a good edit summary), but whenever I try to discuss these issues the response I so often get is one or two bogus sentences and the mindless repetition of a bunch of Wikipedia essays/guidelines (NOTE: NOT POLICIES) in an attempt to justify the censorious deletion/vandalism ""the constant removal of valid categories/information from articles."" I haven't even been able to respond to this block since I am barred from editing the admin. messageboard; I was given no warning(s), and I was blocked before I even had a chance to defend myself regarding these spurious and overblown allegations.  "