Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Distilled water. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. User blanked page and redirected without explanation.--E8 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only imagine that this block will lead to a request for unblocking, either an apology or a proposal for an exchange of apologies, and some endpoint on the block, if not unblocking. IIRC, our approach to apologies is a guideline or essay, and it's my worth saying out front that
my reading that bald statement (that apologizing is nothing more or less than a ritual) was a lightbulb-balloon-over-head moment,
presumably by nature and certainly by conviction, i am badly put off by rituals (beyond those so ingrained as to make me blind to the applicability of that label),
if my colleagues value an apology to the community for the forgery, i am unoffended by that;
i anticipate neither my putting any personal value on any apology, nor my acting to encourage one.
I'm angry (which is bullshit, and which will pass), and offended (of which neither of those is necessarily true). I think it would be fruitless to tease apart the roles, in my promptly applying the block, of my feeling angry and of my knowing that offense had been given (to me and to the community). I do think the offense to the community justified the immediate block; as i so recently wrote, i think an indefinite block is not so much a severe measure as
simply a declaration that measures are needed immediately, and
the opportunity for the community to work out the longer-term details.
I hope, as a member of the community currently handicapped by anger, to be able to hold my tongue during (well, the rest of) that process. I might even manage not to watch, so please, no one assume you're addressing me in what you say here. --Jerzy•t 14:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I have no idea what this person is talking about.. he mentions his anger and feelings many, many times but I still do not understand what my infraction may have been.
Decline reason:
This, which indisputably proves the allegation and shows that you ought not to be trusted. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I still do not understand what my infraction was. I wrote that very text that was deleted. Upon inspecting closely, I see that this text is "attributed" to Jerzy but that attribution must be yet another error on my part as I must have added my comments to Jerzy's section. If the infraction was in deleting it, then I would like to point out that I only deleted it after Jerzy pointed out that it had been inappropriate for me to write that text in the first place, so in deleting it, I was only trying to help.
I am a professional academic and am very cognizant of academic ethics. If I made mistakes, they were honest and unintentional. At our university, we do not punish students for academic dishonesty if it wasn't intentional.
Looking through my editing history, you will see that I have made many contributions to Wikipedia, and I would consider all of them non-controversial edits.
If my net contributions are still difficult for the moderators to recognize (which establishes the context that whatever mistake I made must have been unintentional), then I must resign from Wikipedia, because it is clear that further contributions are not wanted.
Decline reason:
If the forgery was an error, consider it a fatal error. Toddst1 (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Consider the error mutual - your error is in excluding an honest person.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Distilled water. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. User blanked page and redirected without explanation.--E8 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
