User talk:Stevebritgimp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My personal life is becoming increasingly depraved. Consequently amongst other things I am compelled to take a wikibreak of indefinite duration. Stevebritgimp 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still depraved, but some optimism is creeping in. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 One of these needed! 2 Devon 3 Britannia 4 Procrastination and mood 5 Clive Toye 6 Mike Read 7 Wikistalking 8 Welcome to WikiProject Rugby union 9 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BritanniaFFGlaidout.jpg 10 Plymouth 11 List_of_cricket_terms 12 Images getting zapped

[edit] One of these needed!

Welcome!

Hello, Stevebritgimp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

And I'll get back to you on Devon as soon as I can - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Devon

While I'm not a busy person, I do have a lot of different projects I'd like to do, and being someone who procrastinates, I don't ever get much done. Just one project is my very, very tiny involvement with wikipedia. I like it, and want to continue to do little bits. And one area I at least know about is Plymouth, my home, and its environs. Looking at Totnesmartin's page he mentioned a wikiproject Devon, and Herbythyme has also mentioned it, but I'm having trouble making any headway finding out about it. I'll try to contact Herby and have started this talk page so that at least there is somewhere for respondents to get back to me.Stevebritgimp 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Another procrastinator - good!! Should really help Devon along. I've been looking around for a while in this and another incarnation at trying to life Devon profile here but frankly there seem to be few active editors with an interest. I am Devonian and still live in Devon and I'll certainly do what I can to help but at present I am rather involved in WB (it seems to suit me better) - let me know what happens will you (here or there is fine). BTW I think I've seen something about single login coming - I set up accounts on a number of Wikis in this name so it may help. All the best --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[1] is where I've proposed a Devon project. You are cordially invited to put your name to it.Totnesmartin 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rock and Roll! Stevebritgimp 16:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Wikiproject Devon is now up and running, if you want to pop over and have a look. Totnesmartin 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britannia

I set up and wrote the Britannia (board game) page from scratch back along - useful exercise. I was one of the major playtester/contributors on the redesign of the game, and also seem to be the person with gumption who gets all the odd jobs to do. So far (creation to date) very little has been added to the page, which can only be because the Britannia Eurobrit Forum on Yahoo doesn't yet know of its existence. I can think of plenty of stuff that could be added, especially as a bit of an insider from the fan point of view. I'm sure a number of people from that forum would add a lot. However the game's designer may have the attitude that you write an article, and then that's it, nothing happens. I'd like to see it expanded meaningfully, but of course without any 'gee whizz'/advertising type stuff.

This was from the 19 November when I kicked the article off:

Just a note that I am trying to get a Britannia (board game) page started. Spent an hour typing one up after copying the basic stuff from the War of the Ring page, but then it disappeared when I hit submit. Should have copied and pasted it somewhere so I didn't lose it. I'll never learn. Anyway messages for me can be left here.

Yes, subsequent check shows that it lost my entire first edit - arrgh! Sit down and do it again, but with the disambiguation added, and other tweaks.

Right, did it again, and everything's there. Can now leave this and will update after consulting the game's designer and various other punters.

Stevebritgimp 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Procrastination and mood

I read some of the stuff on this thing and think 'urgh'. Woolly thinking from one lot, POV and ignorance from another lot. And that ironically encourages you to be selfish in your objectives. Hpppfffff. Stevebritgimp 15:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clive Toye

Last week, during a long surfing session, set up a Clive Toye page. He was mentioned on the wiki, but nothing had been set up for him. He came literally from a stone's throw away from where I grew up, and nicely links my local thing with my US Soccer thing.Stevebritgimp 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Read

Regarding these edits- are you trying to be funny or something? I don't think this is particularly appropriate for WP. Fourohfour 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand chastened - although ironically I'm cast in the role of sticking up for Mr Read. Stevebritgimp 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Take no notice of Fourohfour, he's a nob.Rolf Mayo 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ironic- Steve said what he said because he he was sick of people (including you) messing up the article too. I only disagreed with the way he said it. :-/ Fourohfour 16:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right Fourohfour, I was sick of opening a wiki-page and finding a load of crap there, and was saying it as I saw it. Despite my navigational language, I do try to clean up vandalism, but the bollocks on that page was too much to sort out.Stevebritgimp 12:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Fourohfour 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there is a sockpuppet template for the notice you placed. HTH, Fourohfour 19:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking

I've recently started spending huge chunks of time watching the edits of certain users - and it is really winding me up. So rather than doing something worthwhile I'm having to defend things from prolific and irritating contributors. Grrrrr. A very long wikibreak might be in order.Stevebritgimp 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You aren't alone. :)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, bud - have seen your efforts too - we end up taking it in turns. The enthusiasm of the guy is welcome, the sheer number of edits and the lack of notice to talk pages and edit summaries isn't. Oh, well - these things tend to blow over.Stevebritgimp 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely... I'm going to put a lot of concerted effort into editing this section of the wiki, and adding better imagery. As for what to do yourself, do whatever you feel is best. Editing wikipedia is supposed to be fun. Hopefully that user will moderate his editing and become more useful. I'll try to handle the worst of his excesses so you can get on with editing.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus fucking wept - either there's one numpty or a group of numpties, and it's really pissing me off. Honestly, whoever it is, could you please dazzle us all with your learning in something constructive. Meanwhile I'm still in wikilimbo. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Update: Later that day... try getting away from it all and run into the usual ethnic conflicts in other places. Oh, dear. Gwin a medo. Stevebritgimp (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Back on my feet. Interesting that I can see the same patterns in edits over six months. Where do people get their energy from? Why can't they be more constructive? Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of education it might be useful to compile a list. Not to be nasty, purely to observe. Currently myself and other users are wasting their energy keeping up. I do genuinely think they could be useful if they slowed down and stopped opining. Stevebritgimp (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, another couple of hours of my life wasted: Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• [2] 9 Mar 08 - 29 Mar 08 current spell, including reversion of good faith edits
• [3] 14 Mar 08 new socks, no actual overlap with above
• [4] 27 Feb 08 - 8 Mar 08
• [5] 29 Feb 08 No overlap with above
• [6] 14 Feb 08 - 24 Feb 08 Nothing gracious about this broken promise
• [7] Just 18 Feb 08 No time overlap with above. G name appears, plus typing 2006, same charming personality
• [8] 12 Feb 08 P2 (P unconnected) attempted relaunch? Also 13 Mar 08
• [9] 26 Jan 08 - 10 Feb 08 Quiet period, only 4 edits, but 2 of them were reverts of other good faith edits
• [10] 19 Jan 08 - 21 Jan 08 The end of this section coincides with a warning on talk
• [11] 17 Jan 08
• [12] 15 Jan 08 No overlap with group below
• [13] 30 Oct 07 - 17 Jan 08 W3 including some reckless edits on 5 Jan
• [14] 13 Dec 07 - 14 Dec 07 No time overlap with group above
• [15] 8 Nov 07 No overlap with W3 group

[16] In fact it appears Nilf mentioned a possible RfC on the editing practices of W2. W2 didn't make any edits after that, and there appears to be a little gap.

• [17] 7 Oct 07 - 24 Oct 07 W2
• [18] 6 Oct 07 - 7 Oct 07
• [19] 5 Sep 07 - 6 Oct 07 W Down to the bedrock - don't think anything significant before this.

Signatures: punctuation, 'blatant' (especially with regard to 'advertising' i.e. any mention of certain things, usually Drake Circus, Plymouth College, other schools), pattern of pages (obsession with Plymouth College - obviously a real connection there, counting charity shops on Mutley, so likely a physical connection there).

Unknown if just one person, very prolific, and if it was more than one, why haven't they clashed with each other? Why don't they overlap? Rather unlikely IMO. You've got all of wikipedia to look at, with some amazing articles and subjects, and yet hundreds of edits are made in the same old places, and hardly any of the edits have been of any use (at least the narrow band confines the damage). No attempt is made to engage other users in concensus building, and talk pages and edit summaries are largely ignored. Seems to want to score points off other people all the time. Personality-wise it's either a 12 year old boy or a 65 year 'old man'. How long can this go on for? Hopefully if all this is laid out some improvement can occur. It would be nice if they set up a user page, but I think they do things too quickly - hence careless spelling, getting the year wrong (which happened in two edits) and the need for multiple edits. If a tenth of this effort was expended constructively who knows what would happen, and also it would free up other editors who wouldn't have their experience of this potentially awesome project ruined. Espere. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to draw them into a conversation on a talk page, we'll see if they have anything interesting to say. Stevebritgimp (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the list above with some more observations. In fact, in reviewing some of these edits some useful work was done, in that for example suburb pages of Plymouth were set up - good. However, the overall mood is one of nuisance. I'm thinking of setting up a shrine. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is going to be very hard. Still no inclination to add to talk pages. Unless this gets sorted I'm just going to have to remove all Plymouth articles from my watchlist. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Is interesting how they edit stuff they themselves posted, but didn't remember that they did. Stevebritgimp (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Rugby union

Awesome - note to self: if I get a chance to do some decent work I want to expand stubs on obscure rugby countries, starting with the CAR Super 16. Stevebritgimp 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BritanniaFFGlaidout.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BritanniaFFGlaidout.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great - some exciting time spent by me trying to understand policy coming up. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, not sure it's truly 'disputed' more like, a bit dodgy. Have put the recommended template into position and completed the template. There are probably reservations on the image, but that said, not sure how straightforward trying to reproduce it would be. Have removed the disputed fair use template and we'll see what happens. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also pitched in and done the same thing on the Croix de Guerre box cover in Advanced Squad Leader Modules - seems the original contributor hasn't been watching these. We'll see what happens and whether the images will still be removed. If they do get kept then I'll be a bit annoyed with myself for not defending more of them.Stevebritgimp (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact have now pitched in with a cut and paste job on the remaining images on that article, given that they are for all intents and purposes of an identical nature. Stevebritgimp (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever I did didn't work, because all the images are gone - including ones that hadn't been tagged - hey ho. Also it actually gives a policy and says all 10 points must be satisfied, but the template you use doesn't have those 10 points. Also it says '3a - minimal use' - well, there was only one image of each module in an article called 'Advanced Squad Leader Modules' - how minimal do you want it? Anyway, it's all above my head. I own all but one of the modules, so could probably end up doing pictures myself. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another odd thing - the images themselves haven't been deleted - they are still there, but have just been removed from the article - what's the point of that? Stevebritgimp (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plymouth

Lot's of editing going on at Plymouth. This is clearly needed, but of course it's always the way that editing gives cover for yet more contentious editing by other users. I'm staying out of it, as I'll only find it irritating. Hopefully more diligent wikipedians than myself will do a good job of it. Stevebritgimp (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_cricket_terms

Hi. I wondered whether this edit was a truly notable term, and if so, in what country/ies? --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Your edit history made me confident you're not a vandal (!) so I don't doubt it exists, but without RS it's not notable. Do you think it's notable? (NB I've never heard the expression used on TMS... and the Aussies tend to refer to sundries, but otherwise nothing exotic) --Dweller (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is notable in Australia, but only used on the radio commentary of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Usually only the general Australian commentators like Jim Maxwell, Tim Lane and Glenn Mitchell use it; the "expert analysts" like Peter Roebuck, Kerry O'Keeffe and Geoff Lawson tend to not do it so much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images getting zapped

Hi. All your images are getting zapped under fair use. That's not to say that they aren't valid, it's just that it appears there are no templates in place, and so bots are detecting that and challenging it. I'm attempting to save at least one of them, and we'll see if it does any good. In these cases they are box covers and so should be OK. Problem is though I don't know what the source of them is. I'm guessing it's the MMP website. Stevebritgimp (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm beyond the point of giving a crap. There were no templates available when I uploaded them. A thinking human being would recognize them as fair use (as you did). These idiotic "bots" whose purpose is to go through and butcher articles only serve to turn people off of Wikipedia altogether. The truly shitty thing is that once they delete the picture, they don't bother to edit the article, just leave a big dead link sitting there in the picture frame with the now useless caption hanging in the breeze. Suits me; I've collected edits to the basic info on wargaming I've put into the articles I've edited and am working on publishing a book on the subject. I've gotten my use out of WP, so the "bots" can do whatever they wish. Thanks for your interest though - good luck.Michael Dorosh^Talk 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You've basically encapsulated my thoughts - I even have an image that the author gave specific permission for, but it might well get deleted - seems wiki doesn't want them. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Citizendium could still use editors...:) .Michael Dorosh^Talk 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.48.25.61 (talk)

Oh good, the bots are watching my signature line when I'm not logged in now, too. Good bot. Michael Dorosh^Talk 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, have seen Citizendium - while the avoidance of idiots would be an advantage, I'm not sure what level of 'approval' I would want for things. Gain in one direction and possibly lose in the other - will bear it in mind. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)