Stevebritgimp

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)

Am needing to take a massive break. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2013, 2014, 2016 and 2018 have been diagnosed as bipolar, and had episodes of psychosis. As of 2020 I am on better medication and having a very supervised lifestyle. Stevebritgimp (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks for tagging articles with the WPDevon template! bsrboy (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikistalking - the shrine

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] 24 Sep 08 and 3 Oct 08
• [3] mostly non-contentious edits including these 30 Aug - 6 Sep 08, won't tag these.
• [4] 28 Jul 08 - 1 Aug 08 repeats the same old editing habits despite warnings on other pages.
• [5] 19 Jul 08 - 27 Jul 08 a two week break, and I thought it had stopped, but think again, Steve. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• [6] 8 Jun 08 - 3 Jul 08 - York
• [7] 31 May 08 - 5 Jun 08 including comment about celebrities (compare and contrast Notable OPMs on the Plymouth College page) and saying on 2 June that Thomas Daley was not born in Plymouth even though his page said that on 29 May [8], and had an external source that said that. Shows he doesn't even look at other pages with supporting information on. The Plymouth page now actually has to have a source on it so it doesn't get reverted. - Derby
• [9] 17 May 08 - 28 May 08, including Plymouth Air Travel edits - you know what's coming - will this ever be let go? Googling this term gets 7 hits, 5 of which are wikipedia mirrors and 2 of which are comments on noticeboards - pitiful. Stevebritgimp (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC) - Hampshire
• [10] 5 May 08 - 10 May 08, including the usual neologism obsession and an appalling attitude on notable people, such as removing Drake, despite being a former mayor of Plymouth with a statue - obviously not notable then. Am actually quite disgusted by the attitude displayed here, and that it still hasn't stopped. Now we see why the guy doesn't sign in, as he would basically get banned. Stevebritgimp (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• [11] 3 Apr 08 - 22 Apr 08, usual pleasantries.

NB - this list has more recent edits at the top - I took a break from this shrine in early 2008, thinking it had calmed down, but apparently not. Stevebritgimp (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• [12] 9 Mar 08 - 2 Apr 08 including reversion of good faith edits
• [13] 14 Mar 08 new socks, no actual overlap with above
• [14] 27 Feb 08 - 8 Mar 08
• [15] 29 Feb 08 No overlap with above
• [16] 14 Feb 08 - 24 Feb 08 Nothing gracious about this broken promise
• [17] Just 18 Feb 08 No time overlap with above. G name appears, plus typing 2006, same charming personality
• [18] 12 Feb 08 P2 (P unconnected) attempted relaunch? Also 13 Mar 08
• [19] 26 Jan 08 - 10 Feb 08 Quiet period, only 4 edits, but 2 of them were reverts of other good faith edits
• [20] 19 Jan 08 - 21 Jan 08 The end of this section coincides with a warning on talk
• [21] 17 Jan 08
• [22] 15 Jan 08 No overlap with group below
• [23] 30 Oct 07 - 17 Jan 08 W3 including some reckless edits on 5 Jan
• [24] 13 Dec 07 - 14 Dec 07 No time overlap with group above
• [25] 8 Nov 07 No overlap with W3 group

[26] 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.

• [27] 7 Oct 07 - 24 Oct 07 W2
• [28] 6 Oct 07 - 7 Oct 07
• [29] 5 Sep 07 - 6 Oct 07 W Down to the bedrock - don't think anything significant before this.

Bsrboy's list

Here are a few more bsrboy (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC):

1. 82.26.71.165 - Kent
2. 86.26.207.192 - Derby

Locations coutesy of http://www.tracemyip.org/

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is where I'd think of reporting it. If you need any help in doing so I'll help. bsrboy (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, bud. Yes, those are the guy I mean - I added those very IP addresses today with dates and comments above the NB sentence above. I'm 99.54% certain it is just one person. Someone suggested a wikipedia:RfC back along, and that might be merited. Like I say, presently I'd like to put some marker on all those above talk pages (that's 19 talk pages!) so show that they are all one person. However I haven't been closely following exactly what they've been doing in detail, the above are just highlights.Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Profile of our friend

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)

Have extended the shrine with the NB sentence and the links above it. Looking over these edits their continuous contentious and attritional nature makes me inclined to slap a sockpuppet tag on all of them, and link them to the RfC mention. I think that might border on me actually wikistalking, and I would prefer not to do that. However I do think some attention is merited, so at least other editors can make an informed choice. It would need to be a nice way of openly linking all the edits together, as this user refuses to be a man/woman/small green creature from Alpha Centauri, sign in, and subject his/her/its contributions to scrutiny. Stevebritgimp (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I found an edit where Whiteworks called Plymouth City Airport the "Jannerdrome" located here. Has a checkuser been requested? It might be helpful in identifying other IPs. Actually that edit was copy and pasted from the Plymouth City Airport website. Maybe it is verifable? bsrboy (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing we have to realise with internet referencing, is that some other sites mirror wikipedia - this means the external source is itself just a slightly older copy of the wikipedia page - I've even seen pages that have used such pages as references! No, I don't believe this neologism can be externally verified at present.Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be the best choice, but if you could get a checkuser done you should use this one:

You should remove these when you've seen them, because they add you to hidden categories. They can also be seen at Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace#Sockpuppet.2C blocked.2C and inactive user alerts

I was thinking of the first template - and I suppose that would be OK. I would suppose user:whiteworks would be the user in question. Please allow me to remove these templates from my page soon - as now I'm a sockpuppet!! I would say put the first template on all the IP address pages, plus the named user pages I have above. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that - I think Whiteworks2 would be the one to be referred to. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already started work with Whiteworks2, so yes. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Whiteworks2. bsrboy (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it should be User:Whiteworks. Whiteworks 2 and 3 are sockpuppets of the original Whiteworks. bsrboy (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to create a userpage. The only case I could think of would be if there was a checkuser and it came back that whiteworks had used accounts/IPs abusively, which whiteworks probably did, then the "This user has used multiple accounts abusively and has been blocked indefinately" tag would be used. As a say that needs proof via checkuser. bsrboy (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Good! Hopefully we shouldn't have this kind of persistant trouble again, although if there is I'll be quick to get onto it. I hope you want to stay with Wikipedia and continue your good work. bsrboy (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Solutions for disruptive editing

Have been looking at wikipedia:DE. While I'm not seeking a ban, and so am not seeking to find a load of diffs and tell tales, I do feel the editor is being disruptive, and has been so for 9 months. I would like to find a way to connect the editor's edits together, as they have been warned before, but neither seem to have learned, nor are those warnings obvious as they have occurred on different IP user talk pages, or named user talk pages. I will consider seeking advice from other users, per my last comment above. Stevebritgimp (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Have also read through wikipedia:wikiquette alerts but I don't think the editor in question has been openly uncivil at any more than a very low level. I think I wouldd propose just to link the pages, but the term sockpuppet seems to imply vandalism, which in this case, apart from a few silly cases, isn't warranted - need to read more. Stevebritgimp (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

With the help of bsrboy I have tagged all the IP talk pages and named talk pages above with the sockpuppet tag - that will at least help other editors track all the edits. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Rugby union

Hi, and welcome to the Rugby union WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to rugby union.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPRU Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and a collaboration of the fortnight.
• We have a Fiji rugby task force that focus on Fiji related rugby union articles.
• Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorisation, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Shudde ^talk 22:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Plymouth (November 08)

Just to let you know it didn't get moved. I guess everybody forgot about it and the timer ran out. Also, some more good news is that it's really getting close towards GA class. I've just filed it for a peer review (link) and it looks like it's got a strong change of being promoted after I've made some minor modifications. bsrboy (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, bud - Yes, no consensus. I expect it will keep resurfacing. Meanwhile the article definitely has a shot at GA, and should at least get feedback on it. Will follow. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We're going to be on the Main Page! See Plymouth Sound, Shores and Cliffs for more details. Jolly Janner (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And another one.... Jolly Janner (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've literally just been reading it - and then reading about Bradninch. :) Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you are editing a lot more now. Plymouth passed GA and I started a CU case for you-know-who. Jolly Ω Janner 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same person at all - You know who had a very specific style and was very narrow-minded in what pages they edited. You've found a connection between some of the edits and a couple of the IP addresses, but I'd be surprised if the Drake Circus edits are connected to you know who. You know who seems to have stopped editing. Maybe I should check around a bit. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother wasting your time over it. Checkusers will find any other accounts and if they uncover some sort of huge hub of vandalism, then they will take appropriate action. Jolly Ω Janner 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, up to them to sort out - am pretty sure Whiteworks is unconnected here. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Earspools

Hi Stevebritgimp, thanks for your comment on the Mictlantecuhtli article. I've now created a stub article dealing with earspools. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Call for consensus/conclusion to current Ireland rugby union team icon

Hello, I am contacting you because you have been an active participant in the recent discussion on icon to be used for Ireland rugby union. I have tried to summarise the many strands and come to a conclusion based on what I perceive the consensus to be in this section - Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. To move the issue to a conclusion I am asking all participants who have signed the discussion to read my summary and comment on the validity of the approach I have advocated, before the issue goes cold. I am keen that the enormous efforts of all contributors results in a tangible conclusion on this occasion.Kwib (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nantwich history

Thanks for your addition to the woefully inadequate history section of the Nantwich article. I've read extensively about the history of the town in the course of writing about its listed buildings, and I've never come across this name or any suggestion that Nantwich was a Celtic site -- could you add your source for this? Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• tis done - copied the ref across - will detail on Nantwich talk fwiw. Stevebritgimp (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Plymouth

Rather than me slapping a big {{unreferenced}} tag on the article, which might draw unwelcome attention to it, is there any chance you could find some references for it, and anything about its history? I'll certainly help defend its notability, but it does need some refs. Cheers, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I know - there doesn't seem to be anything online at all. That would leave offline sources, and that might be finding a needle in a haystack. The only course I can think of would be to try and ask a historian to see if they know of anything. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It worries me that it's not shown on this list or mentioned here. Where is the flag actually flying? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It flies on top of Plymouth Civic Centre, and it flies outside Plymouth Guildhall. Before the remodelling of the underpass on Royal Parade it flew at a large flagpole outside the Civic Centre. Had done for decades. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Yoshihiro Sakata

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Yoshihiro Sakata requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bihco (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Give me more than about 20 seconds to type something, and I'll do it. I hadn't said I was finished. Stevebritgimp (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually scratch that - this just reminds me why I can't be assed. Another hour of my life wasted. Stevebritgimp (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

USA

See here.

Bot attack - anti millennial - Eric Bailey

Below is something from the Depression (economics) talk page that I picked up somehow - I don't recall how. Put two and two together that certain terms only existed on twitter. Have wasted several hours repairing the four pages that have been damaged by this add on - it isn't a bot, but a browser add on:

There is a bot attack from an IP address that changes:
Millennials to Snake People
Great Depression to Clutch Plague
Great Recession to Time of Shedding and Cold Rocks
Baby Boom to Thulsa Doom
Occupy Wall Street to Great Ape-Snake War
This is a bot that has been initiated by Eric Bailey, a graphic designer from Boston and dates back to around May of 2015. I'm not sure if it makes the changes itself, or if it makes changes in real time with other changes people make, due to a Chrome/Safari/Firefox extension that Eric blames Google for allowing. That's @ericwbailey on Twitter. Not to get personal on the guy, but he's in his early thirties, into brewing and tech stuff, and is basically what you would call a hipster: Nathan Barley I'm going to repair the damage, but I don't know what technical solution can be put in place to stop users who have the extension (there are over 12,000 worldwide) from damaging pages quite innocently. I'll leave that to more responsible tech people. This has irritated me so much I've edited for the first time in years. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Other pages affected:
Dorilus_Morrison - Nsteffel
Liverpool - Correctus2kX
Invincible_(Michael_Jackson_album) a reference to The Great Depression album by DMX - The_wub<
If we're lucky that will be it, other obvious pages seem OK after a text search, although the terms other than Clutch Plague are hard to search for in Wikipedia as a whole. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Stevebritgimp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Stevebritgimp. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Stevebritgimp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)