User talk:Prioryman: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:20, 8 April 2013

Re: King's Bastion

Thanks, will do. Have a good break and Happy Easter! --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 09:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Śmigus-Dyngus

On 1 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Śmigus-Dyngus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Polish girls (pictured) are getting wet and spanked today, but will have their revenge tomorrow? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Śmigus-Dyngus. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Shitterton

On 1 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shitterton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Shitterton has been voted to be worse than Scratchy Bottom or Brokenwind? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shitterton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Brown Willy

On 1 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brown Willy, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Aetherius Society believes that their sacred 1,375-foot (419 m) Brown Willy is full of holy energy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brown Willy. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John le Fucker

On 1 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John le Fucker, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John le Fucker's name probably did not mean what you might think it means? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John le Fucker. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikibreak

My first and only wikifriend on a break? lol. Look forward to your return mate. Ollie DietJustice (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:The Mare's Nest.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:The Mare's Nest.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:A Night to Remember 1955 edition cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:A Night to Remember 1955 edition cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Icelandic Phallological Museum logo.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Icelandic Phallological Museum logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bare Faced Messiah US cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bare Faced Messiah US cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bare Faced Messiah UK paperback cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bare Faced Messiah UK paperback cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Titanic musical Broadway poster.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Titanic musical Broadway poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nom for The Hole

Howdy- I have reviewed your nomination for The Hole to become a good article. I did not feel it currently met the requirements. You can find my review here. Please feel free to ask any questions you have on my talk page. I hope I wasn't too generic on the review page. Thank you. PrairieKid (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Prioryman. You have new messages at PrairieKid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PrairieKid (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar DYK questions

In answer to your questions: honestly, I can't answer them. I haven't kept myself up to date with the situation with Gibraltarpedia, so I'm not sure whether or not it's still a problem and what kind of conditions would be appropriate. My initial instinct, though - if there was another RFC tomorrow - would be to take the same position, unless someone could demonstrate that the problem has been satisfactorily resolved. Robofish (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that raises the question of what constitutes a "satisfactory resolution". What would you personally be looking for? Prioryman (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your questions at User talk:Kaldari#Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with Kaldari. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. I think it's probably time, but I would need to do more research before saying that without qualification. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Prioryman: - From my vantage point, Gibraltarpedia is a PR disaster for Wikipedia and along the lines of the John Seigenthaler incident a few years back. Happenings like this undermine the project's credibility. You asked: (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? There are no easy answers to those questions. I see it as fighting cancer. If we release the restrictions early (i.e. stop treatment thinking we've eradicated the cancer), it could reemerge, and possibly more virulent than the first iteration. While I understand there are several good editors working on Gibraltar-related projects that deserve recognition, it's hard to balance that with the abuse--as the abuse was quite deliberate. So, the short answers to your questions (1) when we can be sure this madness won't re-rear its ugly head, when the restrictions can be loosened in a way that allow recognition of Gibraltar-related content without it being a massive, coordinated overwhelming campaign to promote Gibraltar by pushing it everywhere often. I am not sure it's possible. If we're still talking about it, the problem is still lurking--the cancer isn't yet in remission. (2) a year might be the appropriate time to reexamine it. No guarantees, no hard-set dates. As with Afghanistan, the US announces a date of leaving, the Taliban just sits biding their time. --24.115.67.94 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to FBI seal discussion?

Hi. I remember the FBI seal discussion, but don't know where to find it. If you do, could you possibly add a link to the straw poll preamble, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. Prioryman (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 ::I replied on my talk page.  I think it's probably time, but I would need to do more research before saying that without qualification.  [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 06:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
+'''@Prioryman:''' - From my vantage point, Gibraltarpedia is a PR disaster for Wikipedia and along the lines of the [[John Seigenthaler]] incident a few years back. Happenings like this undermine the project's credibility. You asked: (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions?  There are no easy answers to those questions. I see it as fighting cancer. If we release the restrictions early (i.e. stop treatment thinking we've eradicated the cancer), it could reemerge, and possibly more virulent than the first iteration. While I understand there are several good editors working on Gibraltar-related projects that deserve recognition, it's hard to balance that with the abuse--as the abuse was quite deliberate.  So, the short answers to your questions (1) when we can be sure this madness won't re-rear its ugly head, when the restrictions can be loosened in a way that allow recognition of Gibraltar-related content without it being a massive, coordinated overwhelming campaign to promote Gibraltar by pushing it everywhere often.  I am not sure it's possible.  If we're still talking about it, the problem is still lurking--the cancer isn't yet in remission. (2) a year might be the appropriate time to reexamine it. No guarantees, no hard-set dates. As with Afghanistan, the US announces a date of leaving, the Taliban just sits biding their time. --[[Special:Contributions/24.115.67.94|24.115.67.94]] ([[User talk:24.115.67.94|talk]]) 11:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 == Link to FBI seal discussion? ==