some just make things up as if it substitutes for the truth and use mistakes as proof of being disruptive but very few actually can cite facts inaccurate edits nor bother to even think about checking sources cited it is much easier to complain about theodore and to revert since following wikipedia's principles about biting newcomers is an excuse since it does not exist and does not happen to any newcomer and if they mention it they are using it since it doesn't exist etc etc this is just one of the many problems wikipedia newcomers face with such people it is so much easier not to care about any subject nor to check sources as i do as a journalist and to find inaccurate and unfactual materials while avoiding pov but to play games to have personality conflicts as if they actually know the people they are writing to they avoid resolving matters peacefully but highly enjoy creating fights building molehills into mountains and love throwing out wild accusations they don't ask they assume they immediately accuse then complain loudly they take everthing personally all the while not reading checking sources nor citing sources themselves on the subjects in question but adding plenty of their own pov that is not neutral nor cited with sources if sources run counter to their pov then they use ruses to attempt to divert attention and ask for rfcs on wikipedia members who just got here and request arbitration to resolve situations they have not even started to resolve on their own yet claiming that they have tried perhaps if some spend much more time actually checking sources citing them and making sure that the encylopedic materials are factual then the revert wars by some who want to re write history to fit their own personal views would end and wikipedia could be that much more successful so if one is to gather evidence show just where my edits are vandalism where i'd like to see it show my edit summaries show my edits and don't cite my early mistakes as proof of being disruptive since i'd like to see someone claim they do not make mistakes themselves oh one more thing when a person defends themselves try not to dismiss it as a diatribe but actually read it in context and take responsbility for one's own claims against the person in this case a new member of wikipedia i've had enough of my comments being taken out of context then pasted onto rfc and arbitration sections and used as proof of me being a bad person and disruptive i say different and have the right to defend myself against what i consider to be a classic case of biting wikipedia newcomers i will take credit for my honest mistakes but not for accusations that are false my evidence are the comments and retorts and my edits which are cited and soucred any arbitrator who wants to know more about my edits and comments can feel free to ask or to view my comments in context and not taken oout of context by some who are doing the constant complaining i see no proof of any infactual edits on my part and my early mistakes are just that mistakes that most newcomers to wikipedia make that does not justify say your own comments bunchofgrapes and those of the other revert warriors who in my opinion are ruining wikipedia so i've made inquiries elsewhere to make sure that perhaps this comes to an end and that my case can be used as an example of what happens negatively to newcomers who run up against those who signed the rfc and asked for arbitration my evidence is there my work to this time my edits sourcing and using the talk pages which i do not abuse but use to add comments relevant to the subject at hand