User talk:Woodcore

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. 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. --E8 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit to Talk:Tetralogy of Fallot includes a forgery over my signature. [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions.  If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  --Jerzy•t 05:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Consider the error mutual - your error is in excluding an honest person.