"My behavior, certainly as a newcomer to Wikipedia has never been destructive, nor am I a vandal. I am a veteran journalist, writer, and editor with many years of experience. Though I've made mistakes as a Wikipedia newcomer, I am not oblivious to the attempts by some to make a mountain out of a molehill in this short a time I've been a member of Wikipedia. As an example, I was recently blocked without knowledge of this being done, and with no proof as to the reason but citing ""edit warring"" which I did not partake in. Moreover, the more I cite sources that are verifiable, and the more I read, and apply Jimbo Wales Wikipedia principles & guidelines, the more trouble newcomers seem to get into with what appears to be a clique of POVers, and ""revert warriors"" who take the honest mistakes of newcomers, and turn them into immediate accusations, use of pronfanity, and the ""one-way"" pastes of comments from me onto RFC & arbitration pages - taken out of context, without adding their OWN comments on edit summaries, and talk pages. I find this curious - since, to prove that a person is doing such a thing as they say - revert warring - and being ""disruptive"" in honest writign & editing, and citing sources, and references, that some such as Ruud, Bunchofgrapes, and others, would find it useful not to add their own comments which, if arbitration members can find them - contain a hostile tone, reject attempts to work together, are mean, avoid sourcing themselves, with their own entries very much POV while ""revert warring"" without first reading, or seeing the sources cited. This has happened many times with me in just over one month and I just got here. Some on the RFC page who signed have even resorted to deleting their comments to fit their accusatory assertions on Theodore7 - but pasting my comments as one-liners - and sentences as ""proof"" of my being disruptive? If this is the case, then why do they not add their own comments, and my return comments in context? Doing this - cutting, and pasting my words OUT of context to then fit into their accusations - is what is going on, and this only makes more suspect their own Wikipedia edits; which, are very weakly sourced (if at all) despite my doing so, and asking others to do so in accordance with Wikipedia principles, and the advice of some Wikipedia administrators who were kind enough to help me without biting a newcomer - nor making immediate accusations designed to disrupt themselves. For instance, Bunchofgrapes made several ""reverts"" on materials I added sources to - and then turned to make rude comments on edit summaries. I asked him to please not do this. It seems more common to not cite sources and to ""revert war"" - a term I did not know existed before joining Wikipedia. It seems that many of the crew who complain so much about the newbie Theodore7 have been ""revert warring"" for some time. I just stumbled onto some rather neferious POVing, and ""reverters"" who throw out that claim onto others if they do not agree with something that is counter to their own point of view. This is why citing verifiable sources is important. However, some just seem to think Jimbo Wales' principles do not apply to them. I think different. I am new here, and I read, and am applying more of Wales' principles and guidelines as I go along - despite some who would laugh at this, and, if one is good enough to read through all the ""complaints"" about Theodore7 - other would mock Wales' principles & guidelines, and tell newcomers not to ""use"" him as a excuse, etc. This is the kind of thing that has been going on since I recently joined Wikipedia.  

"