Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to OLED, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at James Chadwick, you may be blocked from editing. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Vsmith (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Dddash107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Vandalism commited once, to give example to a user, other account of vandalism was me adding information about pure water being poisonous, which was correct information(I added a link to the bottom from where I got the info) and the creator of the page apparently didnt think it was related to the subject.Dddash107 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Perhaps that was a content dispute (I didn't look into it) but your last edit before being blocked was unambiguous vandalism. And really ... when you say in your edit summary that you "want to test the security of your site", do you really expect us to jump to unblock you (Hey, come to think of it, you've been blocked now for five months or so. I'd say we've passed your little test with flying colors). — Daniel Case (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
It wasn't "correct information", nor was it supported by the page you linked to: nothing in the article about water intoxication suggested that it was caused by ultra-pure water, let alone all the stuff about membranes and so on. Either you knew full well that what you wrote was something you yourself introduced, unrelated to the page you tried to link to, in which case it was vandalism, or else you are capable of reading a page and seeing loads of stuff there which isn't there, in which case you probably will not be able to edit Wikipedia constructively. In any case, I don't see how you can deny that both of these: [1] [2] were vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)