User talk:Mrcitizenx

• Keep Please have fair minded editors weigh in. Thank you.

Mrcitizenx (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

I have blocked you for disruptive editing, namely: removing AfD templates from J Barry Grenga and vandalism of User talk:JBH. If any of this activity continues when the block expires you can expect an indefinite block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep You are incorrect. The user User talk:JBH vandalized the talk page of the article I did not. He should be blocked. He engaged in disruptive editing namely removing, keep, comments in articles support. Read the logs. The user [[User talk:JBH] removed positive comments about article so that user should be blocked. A talk page is for the engagement of a fair discussion. Discussion can't be fair if User talk:JBH removes comments from the page. My action of removing the AfD template was in resonse to his unethical unfair treatment of the article. I can only assume that you are in cahoots with [[User talk:JBH] or you are him under another user name.'

Mrcitizenx (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I repeat. Please have fair minded editors weigh in. Thank you. Block User talk:JBH from the article. If any this activity of bias and unfair treatment continues then you can expect I will contact other forums and have editors assess your motives and position.

Mrcitizenx (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand your frustration at being blocked. Let me recommend that you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, which has some suggestions on how you should (and should not) address the situation of being blocked.

At this point, you've heard from at least three experienced editors, whose attention was brought on your by your postings on the noticeboards. They have all told you that the edits that you've complained about are reasonable within Wikipedia practice, and that your own edits have been problematic. You can go on assuming that every one of these editors is an unfair-minded soul somehow in cahoots to cause damage to Wikipedia, or that these three editors with long editing histories are actually just one person who spent over a decade setting themselves up so that when you came along, they could pretend to be different people; or you could allow for the possibility that in this case, the truth is something that you don't want to hear.

You continue to try to point to User:JBH as the person you're complaining about, which gives the opportunity for a Wikipedia lesson: a person's signature is not always the same as their username. At the top of this page you'll see a message signed "Martin", but the username is actually MSGJ. As has been noted to you before, the user with the username JBH (and thus the person whose talk page you were vandalizing) has not been active on Wikipedia for over a decade.

Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which you can read at WP:VANDALISM. The edits you are complaining about do not match that definition, and would not match that definition even if they had been inappropriate. The same cannot be said of some of your edits. Even had the other user's edits been vandalism, that would not have made it okay for you to vandalize Wikipedia as well.

Deleting the AFD notice was not helpful to your cause. It does not stop the deletion discussion from continuing. At most, it might have prevented some other Wikipedia readers who might have agreed with you that the page should be kept from seeing the notice and weighing in with their opinions during the brief time the notice was gone. It did waste the time of other editors who had to restore the notice.

While you are blocked from editing for a period, you are in no way blocked from reading Wikipedia. I suggest that you take this time to review some of the policies and guidelines that have been pointed out to you, so that you can more effectively be involved as an editor. This would serve both your goals and Wikipedia's. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)