Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 6 March 2012 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 14d) to User talk:Sswonk/Archives/2011.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Hello from Sswonk

Thank you for visiting my talk, and thanks for adding your remarkable talents to the Misplaced Pages project. I welcome any and all comments. I will maintain any feedback without regard to how it makes me look; I have blundered more than once here in Wikispace and want any help I can get to rectify and clarify my beloved topics. Thanks, and enjoy!

Formal warning about your comment at user talk:Sarah777

Sswonk, I find your comment at user talk:Sarah777 very close to seriously inappropriate behaviour. It gives the distinct impression of trying to put words in another user's mouth. It is clearly against the spirit of canvassing, and it smacks of trying to 'stir up trouble' (for possible want of a better phrase) by way of tempting Sarah to go against the advice of her mentor, possibly in the hope of getting her involved in a large and potentially uncivil discussion where consensus is not currently matching your views. Please consider this a formal warning. Sarah is to be commended for her actions in voluntarily consulting with her mentor and then taking his advice, particularly on a subject she is know to have strong views about. Having explicitly declined to contribute to the discussion, as is the right of every contributor to this project, you should not be hounding her. Crossposted to user talk:Sswonk and user talk:Sarah777. Additionally noted on the discussion page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Consider this a formal warning: you are being a WP:DICK. My request to an adult person did not in any way "suggest tempting Sarah to go against the advice of her mentor". I asked her to confirm, on her page via a single sentence response, what is a blatant truth, that she opposes the title. I can only thank you for your fantastic summation that what I asked is "in the hope of getting her involved in a large and potentially uncivil discussion", since it illustrates very well why I consider this website a cesspool. For someone of your caliber to become an administrator after only six months of work in 2005, and proceed to consider that license hold the views you do and lord over people who disagree with you is a severe insult to the intelligence of the populations of wiki editors and readers alike. I formally reject your authority, because you use it to stifle critics, prop up your ego and spread fantastic, poisonous lies about other editors. No one should have to put up with this, I certainly won't. cc: Thryduulf talk, Sarah77 talk. Sswonk (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see anything "seriously inappropriate" in those comments, nor do I find any canvassing there. I believe Sswonk's characterization of Sarah777's view is accurate, and I see him simply asking her to confirm it, in response to a query by Dmcq. I think Thryduulf's "formal warning" is inappropriate, and I think he owes Sswonk an apology. -- Evertype·✆ 14:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

While I might have considered an apology had I read your comments (Evertype) before Sswonk's, the personal attacks he has responded with are completely inappropriate and unjustified in all situations. Were they not directed against me, I would be not unlikely be considering a civility block. As they are directed against me, I shall obviously not be doing so (my judgement regarding what I perceive as attacks against me is hardly going to be unbiased), so WP:WQA is my next stop. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WQA#Personal attack by Sswonk. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Following advice there, I have copied the discussion to WP:AN/I#Personal attack by Sswonk. I do not know whether discussion will also continue at WP:WQA or not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel compelled to say to you, Thryduulf, that you should let this drop rather than escalating it. It's not making you look very good. -- Evertype·✆ 16:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thought the initial intervention was OTT. Can we drop it now please? RashersTierney (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wellesley MA seal.png

Thanks for uploading File:Wellesley MA seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Boston NRHP split discussion renewed

If you're around you might comment at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, Massachusetts. I've reopened the discussion on splitting because the page is not rendering properly (due to too many templates). Magic♪piano 15:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)