`  == My Statement ==  Please do not modify this section, start a new section below ``Feedback``. I will most likely update this section, so don't consider it final.  I've been blocked, and I've been trying to determine the best way to provide evidence for my statement. At first, I hoped it didn't have to go this far. When I first started in wikipedia, I recognized a totally misunderstand 'primary sources', and when I 'got it', I tried to let the situation go without being demoralized.  On ArbCom, this link was given:   I understand that admins and ArbCom can get busy, and I feel the block was pressured before I could be heard. I wondered how much of the link above was actually read, like maybe just that section and then moved on to the next evidence/link. And, obviously it made me look bad and an easy block:   At that point, I wanted no association with my old account, and that is partly why. I hinted many times in *sighs* and such to not make the link, but the persistence was out to get me to confirm. I should not have had to confirm to anybody since CheckUser tells the truth. Besides the deleted page (on the other wiki), I made no other voluntarily statement to say ``Hey my old account is XXXX,`` as it contains personal information in the name.  To provide a statement, I'm looking for a mentor to help me go over the grudge:  From then:  And now:   So, now, on being BOLD:  My  page makes a pretty bold statement, and I'm not sure if it means anything about its section on deleting cited statements:    Especially in an article that needs improvement:   And, it was still noted there was no discussion:   I could not understand when that article had almost no citations.  After editing astrotheology and being met with the need to verify and fact check every edit I make  even after the source was fully recognized:   I was quite stressed about the language:   I thought wikipedia was suppose to be 'fun', but I heard this:   I tried to be subtle about it on the AN/I, but to only give enough to draw attention. I had to make that more explicit because the admins thought it was only a content dispute (which would have been more preferable since it would been more passive):   At that point, it was a situation that was thought to be a content dispute, despite what I pointed out on the language.  Then, it went to ArbCom faster then what seemed normal. I was actually reading the entire ArbCom page, to get a feel of how to respond, and I saw a lot of familiar names. When I finally hit edit page to make a statement, I noticed I was blocked. The entire reason why I first posted to AN/I got buried in grudge.  An RfC was recommended:   It was bypassed, considered    Was it going to fail?:    Was it too silly?:   More AfD????:   Privacy????????????:   Best wishes???:   :*sigh*  ????:     —   === Feedback === Please do not modify the section above, start a new section below. —  `