User talk:SkagitRiverQueen: Difference between revisions
→Good grief: + |
|||
Line 455: | Line 455: | ||
::::::Really? Well, first of all - who's "we"? You aren't an administrator. And secondly, those allowances and courtesies are extended all the time to other editors - I've seen it happen time and again. Your explanation here doesn't wash, and frankly, means nothing to me. When and administrator says the same thing based on stated policy, *then* I will believe it. And then, of course, there would be the discrimination factor that goes along with such a "policy"... --[[User:SkagitRiverQueen|SkagitRiverQueen]] ([[User talk:SkagitRiverQueen#top|talk]]) 20:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC) |
::::::Really? Well, first of all - who's "we"? You aren't an administrator. And secondly, those allowances and courtesies are extended all the time to other editors - I've seen it happen time and again. Your explanation here doesn't wash, and frankly, means nothing to me. When and administrator says the same thing based on stated policy, *then* I will believe it. And then, of course, there would be the discrimination factor that goes along with such a "policy"... --[[User:SkagitRiverQueen|SkagitRiverQueen]] ([[User talk:SkagitRiverQueen#top|talk]]) 20:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::::"We" are the community. Administrators aren't necessarily any more of an authority on the subject. I've been here longer than many admins, and have been offered the position repeatedly, but turned it down. If the only people you trust to inform you of policy are admins, so be it, you can see what they say. Nevertheless, a policy of making those kinds of allowances for medical conditions would require some sort of verification to prevent abuse, which I think makes it rather impractical for Wikipedia. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 20:04, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)</font> |
:::::::"We" are the community. Administrators aren't necessarily any more of an authority on the subject. I've been here longer than many admins, and have been offered the position repeatedly, but turned it down. If the only people you trust to inform you of policy are admins, so be it, you can see what they say. Nevertheless, a policy of making those kinds of allowances for medical conditions would require some sort of verification to prevent abuse, which I think makes it rather impractical for Wikipedia. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 20:04, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)</font> |
||
{{od}}Have other editors who are given leeway based on their claimed conditions been required to present "verification"? I sincerely doubt it. --[[User:SkagitRiverQueen|SkagitRiverQueen]] ([[User talk:SkagitRiverQueen#top|talk]]) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::SRQ, try to avoid acting in a way that past experience tells you won't get the desired results. To get those results, you need to act differently. If you want to be unblocked, take a few days to a week off from Wikipedia and think about what other people have said to you here and then, after a short break where you can gather your thoughts and get some needed distance from the issues, you can revisit this issue in a calm manner with clear thoughts. Right now, attacking your blocking administrator and portraying yourself as a victim of discrimination isn't working. You may be too angry and upset to see the situation as it really appears. Take a break and come back when you're feeling better. Nobody is perfect, but you need to recognize that the problem isn't Sarek or anyone else here. You can't control the behavior of other people, only those of yourself. The more you keep placing blame on others, the longer you are going to remain blocked. Please understand and think about this. Be well. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 20:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::SRQ, try to avoid acting in a way that past experience tells you won't get the desired results. To get those results, you need to act differently. If you want to be unblocked, take a few days to a week off from Wikipedia and think about what other people have said to you here and then, after a short break where you can gather your thoughts and get some needed distance from the issues, you can revisit this issue in a calm manner with clear thoughts. Right now, attacking your blocking administrator and portraying yourself as a victim of discrimination isn't working. You may be too angry and upset to see the situation as it really appears. Take a break and come back when you're feeling better. Nobody is perfect, but you need to recognize that the problem isn't Sarek or anyone else here. You can't control the behavior of other people, only those of yourself. The more you keep placing blame on others, the longer you are going to remain blocked. Please understand and think about this. Be well. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 20:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:07, 21 March 2010
Current discussion | ||||||||||||
Always remember... first assume good faith... Wikipedia is meant to be a work in progress; there are no deadlines here... ...and because life is uncertain, eat dessert first!
The hows-and-whys of this talk pageBecause this is my own user talk page, I have certain rules and standards as to how I like to maintain it.
Thanks for your understanding - may your Wikipedia edits be correct, well-referenced and relevant and may you have a great Wikipedia day! ArchivesMy talk page archives are located here[1]. Barnstar
Userboxes
Mantle décor
Random commentGotta say, I'm impressed by your userboxes -- there are a few in there I wouldn't have expected to see on the same page. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
MessageMessaged the user regarding his harassment. I've also reported the incident to be reviewed by other editors. Happy editing! Netalarmtalk 06:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
WashingtonThanks for your post. I wholeheartedly agree that Washington is one of the most beautiful places on earth. There are some pretty nice parts of the East, like the White Mountains in New Hampshire, but they don't compare. I've been to Israel, too, and that's another one of my favorites :). When I was in Washington I took a whale watching trip that specifically went to the places the Orcas like to go. They are amazing animals. I take it that you also like watching birds. I wish I knew more about birds than I do, given that Central Park and other parks in New York are major stops along the bird migration routes and we get some very interesting ones. And BTW, I think you were right about "incensed" and "posited." Take care, AFriedman (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Happy Monday! --AFriedman (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC) has extended an olive branch of peace. Route description on WA 20Please read WP:USRD/STDS; a substantial route description is expected in a road article. See California State Route 78 for an example. I do agree that some of the details were unnecessary, and the formatting was a bit off, but it should have been revised, not blindly reverted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Merry Christmas!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thanks for your note and holiday greetings. And BTW, I don't know if you saw the earlier message I posted on my Talk page, but I apologize for offending you. Here is a little "present" for you. --AFriedman (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
DinosI don't think he's heard of 3rr or other WP policies before. I put a welcome template on his talk page. We'll see how it goes. Best, Ameriquedialectics 21:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) To our newest RollbackerI have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 07:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Congratulations!Congrats on becoming a Rollbacker! Here is this.
Thanks, AFriedman! Karel articleGood job so far. Looking forward to working together to improve as we go along. JoyDiamond (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You have reverted several of my changes, saying that parenthetical statements are discouraged. Please provide a citation from the MoS. All I see is this, so [citation needed]. Speaking of which, if you see something that needs a citation, put in a [citation needed] tag, don't remove the info. Behan's grave is in fact lost, according to Boyer. Find-a-grave says this also (there is a memorial placque, but not at the gravesite). [2]. The article now states he contracted syphilis while in Tombstone, but that is an inference from the "30 years" date on the death certificate, and should be stated as such. These things are rarely accurate, and info here was provided by his son Albert, who would not expected to know exactly when and where his father contracted syphilis. Albert is also off by a year on his father's entrance into Arizona, by comparison with records. Furthermore, Albert possibly got his father's year of birth wrong and his age wrong (they also are off by a year from other records). Lastly, although I cannot give you reference now, the term "arterial sclerosis" did not mean in 1912 what it does today. What it probably meant in 1912 was the Behan was demented, a condition then thought due to "hardening of the arteries." SBHarris 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Black Dahlia imageHey. Yeah, "PD-self" is meant for pictures the uploader has taken himself, basically. You have to own the copyright initially in order to release it into the public domain. If you simply crop a public domain photo, then the crop would still be public domain but it shouldn't be tagged "PD-self" since the cropper didn't really create the image. This is all academic in this case, however, since the initial photo was not public domain in the first place.—Chowbok ☠ 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
2010 Olympics and GretzkyI was watching the 2010 Olypmic opening ceremonies live on tv, and trust me, there was very few people already gathered at Canada Place prior to the conclusion of the opening ceremony. Many people streamed out of restaurants and homes. Gretzky was standing at the back of the pick-up, it was almost as if it was a victory parade, and the video clearly shows more and more people running after the police escort as it made its way to Canada Place. --Phileo (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2010 (PST)
KarelHi, I got your email on the subject, and started a new section on the talk page to see if we can resolve this. If this doesn't work, the next step will be to request an administrative review. I do encourage everyone involved to take a deep breath, as the issues are fairly minor in the Scheme of Things. Take care --SeaphotoTalk 17:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Albert LewisHi! I put a note for you about Albert Lewis on my talk page, but I am not 100% sure that is the right way to communicate with you. If it is, please look at it, and feel free to delete this note. If this is the better way to communicate, I'll do that in the future. Thanks again for your guidance and help! Resnicoff (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC) AfD nomination of Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday)Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
HaThis is a bit old, but I just noticed it; the "another editor" referred to here was actually her sock. What fun. I wonder what other socks she's got around...—Chowbok ☠ 19:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well...obviously so would I. That's exactly why I struck it out, Lar. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Charles Karel BouleyThanks for your note. First off, I am of the opinion that we should treat BLPs similarly to how we treat other Wikipedians. The same ideas about civility ought to apply to BLPs that apply to Users. Not everything in a BLP is going to be flattering. No evidence that Bouley is a threat to society and that a flattering article about Bouley will hide the danger he poses. So perhaps it's better to err on the side of generosity when writing about him--so long as all the important content remains in the article. For example, this wouldn't mean deleting content about major aspects of his life, such as his firing, but perhaps we could write about this subject more carefully and be especially careful to represent his POV. >Bouley does not put on another persona when he is on the radio. Well, let's look at the articles about some other people whose real names are different from their stage names:
The question becomes fairly complicated for Karel/Bouley. Karel/Bouley does not claim to put on another persona when he is on the radio. However, the part of his life in which he is "Karel" is major and significant, and is clearly delineated from the rest of his life. For example, when people are hiring him for a radio show, they seem to be hiring "Karel." If he introduces himself as "Karel" on-air, people may well be thinking of him as "Karel." However, he's known as "Bouley" in other places. This seems to be someone who is perhaps often referred to as "Karel" in his notable activities, but not always. A more notable person such as Mark Twain is always called "Twain" in the article about him, even though his real name was "Samuel Clemens." Also, if he calls himself "Charles Karel Bouley", this is not the same as being "Charles Raymond Bouley", so some aspects of his stage name have crept into how he is called in other venues. There is perhaps a middle ground in WP:Surname between always calling someone by their surname and always calling someone by their stage name, and this person may be there. (I think I may disagree with you that there's no gray area in WP:Surname, particularly when people are known for multiple notable activities in which they may use different names. This may be the case for Karel/Bouley.) Maybe the article should be redirected to "Charles Bouley" (is "Karel" anywhere in his legal name?) as per "Sean Combs", and warrants a couple of references to him as "Karel" and the rest as "Bouley" as per "Sacha Baron Cohen". >the referenced statement "struggling stand-up comic" "Struggling" is a statement that takes one position about his life without giving the readers the facts to evaluate this position--even if a reliable source describes him this way. It may be more neutral to describe what specific jobs he had as a stand-up comic. For example, if he did not have a full-time job for a specified period of time, it is more informative to say it that way. Or, if he performed in small venues that were not very lucrative, perhaps it's most informative to mention the venues and either link to them, or describe their size. If his comedy routines were not well attended at first, perhaps it's better to give figures about their attendance. On that note, I've recently encountered a not-too-different situation in the biography article for Avraham Qanai, that I'm not completely sure how to handle. An IP address from Albany, New York (where Qanai lives) recently removed some unflattering information about this person. I reverted the IP once, but don't want to do that again because I think the text that was deleted should be thought about more carefully. I don't blame this User even if he did have what Wikipedians would call a conflict of interest--there seem to have been POVs about the text that was deleted that were conspicuously absent from the article. It might have been better if the IP address from Albany had added text that clarified things, but not everyone has the writing skills to do this. As seasoned users, we also forget that it takes a while for many new users to learn the culture of Wikipedia, and that not everyone is prepared to become the regular contributors we are. (User talk:CordeliaNaismith has a number of recent posts from new users with questions about Wikipedia's culture, if you want to remind yourself of this. But I digress, and Joy is a seasoned user anyway.) Anyway, I'm curious what you think re: what's happening in the Qanai article. Also, I saw the "feast of tabernacles" discussion and I definitely agree with you--I strongly feel that article should be kept. --AFriedman (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
On "Feast of Tabernacles", I've already voted "Keep." It seems like the sort of holiday that would have reliable sources about it, and can you find any as per Equazcion (at least that's what she said last time I checked)? Even I know of Christians who celebrate it. Re: "Struggling", I'd like to clarify what I think. Basically, IMO it's better than no information at all about this stage of Bouley's life, but I still think it's a suboptimal way to describe it given its POVness. The issue is not with the reliability of the source that says he was "struggling", but the fact that it tends to be preferable to provide specific information. I'm not convinced that there are no sources about that part of his career, and the ball seems to be in Joy's court to come up with these sources (unless you or someone else wants to). I've posted this stuff on the Talk page of the article, which I probably should have done earlier. --AFriedman (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC) You might be interestedI'll probably take it down in the near future, but you may want to check this out in the meantime. Feel free to contribute if you like.—Chowbok ☠ 07:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Denial is not just a river in EgyptI got to the Bouley article via recent edits while on vandal patrol. The rest of what you say doesn't deserve a response since it's been answered to before. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Main_Street_at_Dusk.jpgThanks for uploading File:Main_Street_at_Dusk.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:ConcreteTheatre_2010.jpgThanks for uploading File:ConcreteTheatre_2010.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Last clarificationI will respect your wishes going forward, but would you please explain where I "made fun of you"? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Re "Please help me understand"My original intention (link) was to simply add a sentence or two about Bouley's show on KNGY, which was not addressed elsewhere in the article. However, I felt that if I added only that information, it would break the continuity of the paragraph (i.e., the last sentence was about him being hired by KGO; I had to make it clear that he was fired before being hired by KNGY). I couldn't think of any other way to include the information. I know it is slightly redundant, but if you can think of any other way, please fix it. By the way, I only reverted once; I do not know how or why Montystone undid your first removal so quickly. ctzmsc3|talk 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC) AN discussionI have proposed an interaction ban between you and Wildhartlivie at WP:AN#Proposed interaction ban between SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Interaction ban imposedAs you and Wildhartlivie both agreed in principle to an interaction ban, I have gone ahead and logged it at WP:RESTRICT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Saw it - and thanks. Frankly, I'm relieved. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC) SandboxJust so you'll know, your sandbox was mentioned on the WP:AN thread [4]. That's probably how Equazcion's attention was drawn to it. There's no call to accuse an admin of harassment because he's following up on an issue where admin attention has been requested. Dayewalker (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank youI just want to thank you for resizing the images in Ted Bundy. I really appreciate it because I couldn't remember how to. I reverted your last resizing due to there being a consensus at the image location when there was discussion about deleting it and then another about the size. Thank you again, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Todd Bentley / CriticismWhat seems to be the problem with adding a 'criticism' section to the Todd Bentley article? Other articles in the Wikipedia have a 'criticism' header with contrasting views. It can help balance an article for NPOV. The paragraph on Todd and the Lakeland revival is a condensed view that can even represent a shared voice by many sources within Christianity, but the source True & False Revival is used and is deemed reliable as per Wikipedia guidelines. Author Andrew Strom was in the same movement as Todd Bentley. The book appears to be an honest evaluation of the ministry of Todd and the prophetic movement that Todd can be said to be associated with. (the preceding comment was left unsigned by TheBlessing at 08:41, 19 March 2010)
CriticismScripture speaks that in the end times there will be seducing spirits, doctrines of demons, and lying signs and wonders. Many extra-Biblical experiences and bizarre manifestations have been observed in the ministry of Todd Bentley that do not line up with scripture. At the Lakeland Revival there was an emphasis on an anointing. A few of the resulting manifestations included; uncontrollable jerking, drunken stupor, teeth turning to a metallic finish, a feeling of being split in two, uncontrollable laughter during prayer, and falling down without being able to move.[1] (The above unsigned post was left by TheBlessing at 08:41 on 19 March 2010)
Been awhile since I wrote. Will shift into (NPOV) 'reporter' mode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlessing (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Impartation post on Lakeland RevivalEvery bit of the following information is clearly in the book. I own the book! Please undo your erroneous action! At the Lakeland Revival services, Todd emphasized the impartation of an anointing. The intent was to spread the revival worldwide by this method. It is reported that various recipients of the impartation manifest; uncontrollable jerking, drunken stupor, teeth turning to a metallic finish, a feeling of being split in two, uncontrollable laughter, falling down and not being able to move, and writhing like a snake in naming a few.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlessing (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As discussed in the pastHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction_ban_between_User:SkagitRiverQueen_and_User:DocOfSoc regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Interaction ban with User:DocOfSocI saw your comment at ANI that you would not agree to an interaction ban if it would prevent you from editing at Charles Karel Bouley. This is now academic, since the article has been fully protected for three months. It might be sensible for you to comment at ANI that you agree to the interaction ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
3RR WarningI know you've left a message on the other party's talk page about edit warring, but I do want to warn you in all good faith that you're also at 3RR on Margaret Clark. While I agree with your changes, I don't think the other editor's changes are vandalism, as you speculated here [5], so 3RR would still apply. Dayewalker (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Good griefHow is pointing out to a user who was decidedly and unnecessarily snarky, rude, uncivil, and lacking in good faith while accusing me of same that they were not practicing what they were preaching a blockable offense, Sarek? I think this latest from you proves you've got it in for me. Enough is enough. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Have other editors who are given leeway based on their claimed conditions been required to present "verification"? I sincerely doubt it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm already blocked for a year - what difference would coming back a few days or a week later make? None. Thanks for the "advice", but... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for continued inability to edit in a collegial fashion, as shown in the discussion up to here. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:
SkagitRiverQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: This isn't the first time I have been blocked by Sarek as a punitive, rather than preventative, measure. It's also not the first time he's blocked me for doing nothing more than another editor involved in the same discussion WITHOUT also blocking the other editor. I opened myself up to him on a personal level through a private email about how I have Asperger Syndrome and that some things - like inferences and certain other responses and behaviors are part of why I edit and communicate the way I do. I asked him to look into Asperger Syndrome so you could better understand what I was talking about. I'm assuming from this latest over-the-top block that he didn't bother to read it. He regularly turns a blind eye to what other editors around me are doing that relates to how I am communicating with them and they get off with not even a slap on the wrist. Sarek has been targeting me for weeks now and this is just another example of his bias against me. I believe Sarek is a bad administrator and has once again misused his authority where I am concerned. Further, I believe that blocking me for a year while already knowing I have a condition that hinders my communication abilities with others (among other things that would relate to how I edit) is discrimination based on a handicap. A block for this incident [6] is not worthy of a year-long block, nor is it worthy of a block at all, IMO. I have asked Sarek for help and to explain a few things to me here and there and now and again and he has balked at doing so. This is a clear case of targeting, discrimination and abuse of administrative authority. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Notes:
Administrator use only:
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting
|