Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kbthompson (talk | contribs) at 23:15, 20 August 2008 (→Olympics 2012: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from 2012 Summer Olympics. 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. Thank you. David Underdown (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see what's political about it. We already mention French comments in the run up to the vote, and the bombings did cause a big shock.. Let's discuss this at Talk:2012 Summer Olympics#Reaction to win and see what others think. David Underdown (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If an owl ate 100 rats to get its name in the papers does it make sense for the tabloids to print its name or would that just encourage more owls to do the same? And if people wanted to try and create divisions in Europe then they may well chose to manipulate information which is widely viewed to do this - however irrelevant and off topic this may be. As said previously, this page should not include any political statements or statements off topic. Please create a separate page for doing this if you feel strongly about them. Bold text This page is to do with 2012 Summer Olympics and should not be used to promote political statements or actions. This is what the the Olympics stands for.

I'm sorry I simply don't understand your argument - and could you possibly copy it to the article talkpage so more people can see it. You've left in various statements about French commetns in the run up to the vote, but taken this out, and stuff about the London bombings. It's not trying to create European divisions, merely reporting reaction at the time of the vote. On the article talkpage, I've just added I whole series of links from The Guardian, which is not a tabloid, and not exactly known for its anti-European sentiment. David Underdown (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK, you should not delete others' commetns from a talk page, unless someone is clearly vandalising. David Underdown (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympics 2012

Hi there. I have responded to the disagreement that you and User:David Underdown have been having regarding the 2012 Summer Olympics. I had a bunch to say, but the key point I want to address to both of you is: please take a deep breath, and go for a walk. Step away from the article for a bit to cool down. Prince of Canada 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to edit constructively after expiration of your short block. Please do take the time to read the policies you've been directed to. Thank you. Kbthompson (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

MissOrgum1996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry I wasn't aware of the rule. I have now taken time and read wikipedias policies and will make sure to abide by the rules

Decline reason:

It seems unlikely that 9 minutes is enough time to review all of the relevant policies that you have broken recently. If you decide to request unblocking again, perhaps saying exactly what behavior you won't engage in will be helpful. –xeno (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2008 (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.

• I've left a message for the blocking admin. –xeno (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

MissOrgum1996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

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:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I was blocked for violating the three revert rule. I apologize for this and promise not to do it again. If unblocked, I'm not going to continue reverting. Instead, I will attempt to find a compromise on the talk page, and if that doesn't work, I'll try dispute resolution. The blocking policy states that blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent future problems. Because I've promised not to cause any more problems, my block no longer serves a purpose allowed by the blocking policy. Therefore, I request to be unblocked. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was blocked for violating the three revert rule. I apologize for this and promise not to do it again. If unblocked, I'm not going to continue reverting. Instead, I will attempt to find a compromise on the talk page, and if that doesn't work, I'll try dispute resolution. The blocking policy states that blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent future problems. Because I've promised not to cause any more problems, my block no longer serves a purpose allowed by the blocking policy. Therefore, I request to be unblocked. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was blocked for violating the three revert rule. I apologize for this and promise not to do it again. If unblocked, I'm not going to continue reverting. Instead, I will attempt to find a compromise on the talk page, and if that doesn't work, I'll try dispute resolution. The blocking policy states that blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent future problems. Because I've promised not to cause any more problems, my block no longer serves a purpose allowed by the blocking policy. Therefore, I request to be unblocked. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Unblock requests are handled by neutral admins. You're right blocks aren't a punishment, they're used when there is potential damage to the project. Edit warring is always regarded as damage. My advice to you is to sit out the block, do use the time to study a little more about editing wikipedia and come back making a positive contribution to the project. That enthusiasm of yours is very welcome, but please channel it into finding agreement with other editors and not edit warring. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock