User talk:Prioryman/Archive 7

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

You posted your comments below the subsection heading. I wonder if it is intended as part of either subsection or the main section. --George Ho (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

A request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Volubilis

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

herostratus talk page and AN/I

I don't know what Herostratus wants to do in this case, but you might want to remove those comments there. I'm assuming you watch his talk page, but here's the AN/I thread: [1]. Volunteer Marek  01:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a poor analogy; it's certainly insulting to midgets to even glancingly make that comparison. Maybe strike it and replace it with a quote of something Kohs himself said on WO that sums up his character or his attitude towards Wikipedia? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Two favours

Greetings! I don't know you, but I'd like to request two favours of you. First, don't make silly comments on Wikipedia (talk pages or anywhere else). Second, please would you arrange some sort of archiving for your talk page? It's likely I will need to come back here, and it's all terribly inefficient. Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting a bit long isn't it? I'll archive it. Prioryman (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of RfC?

I see you have bravely offered to put in a request for a review of Eraserhead1's closure. I don't know whether you have seen that I have been talking to him on his talkpage and he says there that he is unaware of a specified process but would accept a review by a triumvirate if one can be found that's willing to perform the task. Or maybe, as he says, some other standard method of reviewing the closure exists? Either way, I hope you or someone else will follow through on calling for a review. I've stuck my neck out far enough by reverting his change of the rules and continuing to talk on his talk page. Plus I suck roundly at parliamentary procedures. But just in case you had not seen that convo ... now where would one ask for a neutral committee of 3? AN? I am frankly surprised a non-admin would close a contentious RfC in the first place, but that's not such a bad idea if we want to de-bossify adminship, so I haven't raised that issue anywhere; however, I'm thinking it's part of the admin remit to be on teams of 3 to revisit decisions. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Asking on AN might be a good idea, personally I was thinking of e-mailing arbcom and asking them to suggest 3 admins who have not posted a comment in the debate to review the closure and make the necessary decisions.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

AN is the place to ask. Arbcom wouldn't do it because it's not in their remit. I'll put something together this evening and post it before bedtime. In the meantime it would be really helpful if you guys could give some feedback on my new RfC proposal. Prioryman (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir, I think your comments on my talk page were perfectly reasonable :). I was initially a little irritated, but only because you didn't link to the right discussion sections.

@Prioryman, you've made a lot of excellent points in this discussion. I wish you hadn't made that comment about "dead letters" - maybe you didn't intend it, but that came across very badly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was excessively blunt with that comment. Sorry if it came over the wrong way. Prioryman (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry if I was overly aggressive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Tsunami

Enjoyed your article on the Geneva tsunami. Good work.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Giovan Giacomo Paleari Fratino

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Austin Friars, London

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Blue whale penis

Hi, can you comment on this again, is is OK to go?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tauredunum event

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Fuerte de Isla Verde

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Volubilis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syracuse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Charles V Wall

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Murfreesboro Wikipedians

Hi, I saw your contact request on the talk page for the article on the city of Murfreesboro, TN. I live in the town, what can I help you with? Coinmanj (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK

I am getting so upset, I am ready to quit Wikipedia altogether. In the last two reviews of my DYK articles in less than 24 hours, I've been shot down twice. In one case, there is a new hoop. Apparently all Gibraltar sources have to be online. No one else has that requirement. In the second, someone has decided that the site DiscoverGibraltar.com is just a tourism website and unreliable. I am truly getting disgusted with Wikipedia, and DYK in particular. Anne (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My reviews are also frequently being challenged, and I'm not reviewing Gibraltar noms. Although, I was pointedly asked to refrain from participating in promoting Gibraltar to the main page. Nobody else was so publicly chastised on the DYK talk page for promoIing. In at least two reviews, it was poor LauraHale who had made the noms, and was probably the one under scrutiny. Still..I wouldn't mind so much, if it weren't that my reviews give a detailed list of what I reviewed, and other noms that go unchallenged are far more vague. I've kind of reached a point of having lost the will to review nominations. Coincidence or not, I feel nudged off the review process. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me, Anne. You and I were talking about apples and oranges, weren't we? You mean the review of your own nominations challenged the noms, didn't you? Sorry. But something is happening at DYK, and I'm not sure what it is. Not as welcoming as it used to seem. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, with all the gobbledeegook over at DYK, I've lost track of when and whether or not you're bringing User:Prioryman/GA RFC up for a formal vote. Quite frankly, I'm all buzzed out at trying to read thru all the intentional (and successful) "blahblahblahblahblah" to keep this from being resolved. When/if you do this, please post a notice all by itself in plain site. The DYK talk page has turned into something not desirable to look at. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean. It should be a bit easier to read once the recent mega-threads have been archived. As for the RFC, I'm doing some more work on that this weekend; I've had some feedback about it and I'm reading up on questionnaire design to try to iron out any bugs before it gets underway. I'll post a notice as requested, and I'll also send you a notification so that you don't have to wade through the DYK talk page as well. :-) Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There are personality types on this earth whose intent is not to say, "Have a good day," but rather to disrupt. Not to improve, but to dismantle. Just for the fun of it, or the power trip, or the attention it brings, or any other number of psychological whoopie trips. And all the bad behavior inflicted by same will not be deterred at WP, because it's all about having friends in the right places. Some of those types just hop from one project to another. Good editors go away, and the others just stay at WP....hop, hop, hop...from one place to another.— Maile (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Blofeld

And, by the way, in case you missed it Dr. Blofeld seems to have thrown in the towel. — Maile (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know - what a shame! He will be missed. Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ya`fūr

The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just in case

Talk:Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act Biosthmors (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a drive-by tag

My over-quotation tag was not a drive-by, I'm all over the history of that article and the talk page. And you didn't fix the problem. Why don't you learn how to paraphrase, and read the history? 173.66.111.59 (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Blockhaus d'Éperlecques FAC

Sorry about how long it's taken me to respond to your comments on my review - I meant to respond several days ago, but then forgot about it :0 I'm normally much faster! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for King's Chapel, Gibraltar

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of ORCA (computer system)

Hello! Your submission of ORCA (computer system) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Secretlondon (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I indirectly mentioned you with this diff at WP:AN. AIRcorn (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Moorish Gibraltar

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gibraltar 2

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Grand Casemates Gates

Hello! Your submission of Grand Casemates Gates at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for O'Hara's Battery

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Princess Caroline's Battery

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Princess Amelia's Battery

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Princess Anne's Battery

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

GA on DYK query

Heads Up — Maile (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tourism in Gibraltar

Finally got round to this, nice work! I've left some comments on the article's talk page. Hope you're feeling better. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 13:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I know... Cringe! I think it's since been fixed though - people went "apeshit" (excuse the pun!) about it when someone posted it on Facebook. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 11:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Upper Rock Nature Reserve

Mifter (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Expanding Project Narwhal

Hey there, I noticed on Talk:ORCA (computer system), you mentioned expanding Project Narwhal to be similarly comprehensive. I would love to work with you on that and I'm wondering where we should start. Do you have any articles in mind that we could start with? By necessity I think information will be a bit harder to come by, just because Narwhal didn't fail and wasn't touted as publicly -- new organizations enjoy reporting when a system breaks down, as well as repeating the marketing claims of campaign officials -- but they don't give as much attention when a system just runs smoothly. With that in mind, I'm wondering how you think we should approach this? I can look in a journal database for scholarly articles about Narwhal; what else should we try? CaseyPenk (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Obamadon

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Soldier Artificier Company

Nice one Prioryman! I think Anne was also working on this same topic... Do you know what's happened to her? --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 12:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually used her draft (at User:ACP2011/Soldier Artificer Company) as a basis for my article. I'm afraid she seems to have disappeared off the net - I've emailed her but have had no reply. Prioryman (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Third Siege of Gibraltar

Could you please look at the DYK nomination? It follows the basic rules, but I'm concerned about the sourcing. Please be sure to let me know on my talk page when you've replied, since I'll probably forget if you don't. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comments; I'm not very familiar with British commercial publishers, so I had no clue what to think about these two companies. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. Thanks for the review! Prioryman (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of North Bastion

Hello! Your submission of North Bastion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! IronGargoyle (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar copyright violations

• 2005 WWW site
• identical 2012 edit

Look out for this. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I have reported you at ANI for violation of a community restriction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a week for violating your interaction ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

WP:IBAN#Exceptions to limited bans states that IBANs do not apply to dealing with "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons." Publicly accusing another editor of being a paedophile is about as serious a violation of BLP as can be imagined. I intervened solely to ensure that the thread was shut down as quickly as possible and sent to Arbcom and the oversighters to deal with. Prioryman (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:CONSENSUS about your actions say otherwise. Discussing the editor in the way you did was really ridiculous. There were ways of resolving BLP issues without breakign your IBAN - you simply chose not to. I'm surprised this is only a week, honestly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:21, 19 December 2012 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Let's go through this step by step: (1) A thread was started on Jimbo's user talk page with an accusation of paedophilia against another editor. Wikipedia:Child protection specifically prohibits doing this and it's a very serious violation of WP:BLP to make such accusations given the potential harm and legal repercussions. (2) I sought to shut down the thread by asking behind the scenes on IRC for admin intervention and posting to the thread to warn off anyone else wishing to contribute to it.[2] (3) I deliberately did not at any point discuss or refer to the other party to the IBAN. (4) After the thread was hatted, I notified the hatting admin that I had already emailed the Oversight list [3]. (6) Another admin blocked the editor who had been accused of paedophilia. I noticed that someone had suggested to him that he should email Oversight. I notified him that I'd already done so. [4] (7) In all of this, I did not refer to, reply to, interact with or comment on the other party to the IBAN, directly or otherwise, and my sole motive was to get the thread shut down and the paedophilia issue dealt with properly by the right parties - Arbcom and oversight. (8) WP:IBAN#Exceptions to limited bans states specifically that IBANs do not apply to dealing with "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons." I had every reason to believe that the exception applied in this case, and Seraphimblade, who shut down the thread, clearly believes the same - "[I] believe Prioryman to have had legitimate BLP concerns (which are an exception to IBANs)".[5] I believe this is a reasonable interpretation of the IBAN policy, which does have a clear exception for BLP matters, though I do take note of and accept Seraphimblade's advice in the post I just cited. If this unblock request is refused, I'd like an explanation of why the clear BLP exception does not apply in this case. Prioryman (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Righting great wrongs on Jimbo's user talk is not an excuse to take oblique swipes at another editor, no matter what the history and no matter who is right or wrong. The wording of IBAN includes the words "whether directly or indirectly" for precisely this reason. This is not a matter of judging whether DC's behaviour was appropriate: it is a matter of the simple decision as to whether your commenting on said behaviour violates your IBAN, which it does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2012 (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.

Seriously, this is an ANI-enacted block by consensus. No individual admin can/will overturn it. What part of that did you miss? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess the part I missed was the explanation I requested for why the BLP exception does not apply. What is that explanation, by the way? Prioryman (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

One hour and three minutes doesn't seem like much time for a consensus to form, especially not with only a tiny handful of editors commenting, about half of whom appear to be involved in some way anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The "BLP exception" is for reverts to articles, not for court intrigue. It's beyond disingenuous to suggets that your me-tooing of someone else's suggestion on Jimbo's talk page falls under that category. Quit digging. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps many editors also believe that accurately posting information about the contents of a userpage is not an "obvious BLP violation", even if it might transgress other policies about processes to follow, and therefore does not justify violating an interaction ban. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

Anglo-Saxon cemetery GA review...

...is on hold, awaiting your return. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No hurry, but just a reminder that the review's still on hold. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Third Siege of Gibraltar

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for ORCA (computer system)

Gatoclass 00:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prioryman. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/John Ronald Shafto Adair.
Message added 06:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fourth Siege of Gibraltar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Doublet and Levanter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

First Gibraltar Challenge GLAM Barnstar

		The GLAM Logo Barnstar
		The Gibraltar Challenge created over 600 new articles in more than three dozen languages in about four months. Scores of people helped on-line and in Gibraltar. You can find who else helped and find out more by clicking here, you helped with this. Thank you. Mrjohncummings (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for North Bastion, Gibraltar

Gatoclass 00:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for South Bastion, Gibraltar

Gatoclass 00:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gibraltar Heritage Trust

(X! · talk)  · @353  ·  12:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Another thought on the GA RFC

FYI-Assuming you're going ahead with the GA RFC as some point. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Editor_recruitment_with_TAFI seems to have passed and will be added right below DYK. One more thing sharing space on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Gib churches

Started some Category:Churches in Gibraltar earlier then found that sources weren't as readily available as I'd hoped. Can you try to expand a few of them?♦♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)