User talk:GrumpyGuts

Peterborough
You are welcome to contribute constructively, but please remember Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. In particular, Peterborough is a featured article &mdash; identified as one of the best produced by the community &mdash; which has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions.

With respect, I've already spent a lot of time copyediting your edits, not to mention the poorly written (and not especially notable) Stanground College, so (however grumpy you are) I don't appreciate your comments on the talk page. I'm here to help build the encyclopedia, please try to remember to assume good faith. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You seemed to have taken the wrong end of the stick, my friend.
 * The Kings School. Hmmm, not so notable either but Stanground didn't have one and they did. Why not? I seriously don't care; it was badly constructed and written because I knew somebody with more knowledge such as yourself would come along and change it. Fine! But reversing a perfectly good edit (the actor) isn't fair, mate. It had a source, it has an article of its own but you remove it....
 * GrumpyGuts

Although I didn't create that article, the King's School, unlike Stanground College, was endowed by Henry VIII; so yes, it is notable. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but you replaced two beautiful images with horrendous ones. If you want to change them, seek a consensus on the talk page. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Horrendous adj. Extremely bad; awful; terrible ;-) Chrisieboy (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not okay &mdash; not even for a beginner. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry
I have listed a case at Sockpuppet investigations/GrumpyGuts; you have an opportunity to defend yourself there. You should be aware that swearing on my talk page is a violation of WP:CIVIL and may also lead to your being blocked from editing. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I have been given the all clear for the vandalism, I think I need an apology! GrumpyGuts (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously this is an attempt to get me blocked..thank you. GrumpyGuts (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I have reverted your recent edit to Hoffmann kiln as copyvio. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied at Talk:Hoffmann kiln. I see no copyright violation but I can understand why Chrisieboy thought so considering it was copied from a site which claims copyright on another page. Please remove the statements about Chrisieboy from your user page. See Dispute resolution for proper venues to follow if you have a problem with another editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't removed it but removed his name which is good enough. I'm entitled to my own opinion and it's obvious how much we fight GrumpyGuts (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks
The comments on your user page constitute a personal attack, which I suggest you remove. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No that is not "good enough;" both I and an administrator have asked you to remove those comments from your user page. This is not MySpace, it is a serious encyclopedia, where contributor's generally engage in scholarly work. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There, happy? Now please leave me alone! GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Peterborough images
The first version of the new cathedral image you uploaded is darker (the one where you can see a bit of blue sky), and I think better than the second version. I'm not sure why the shorter exposure image looks more washed out. Did you make the change in photoshop? Nev1 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah sorry, by washed out I mean looking paler, with the colours less vivid. By exposure I was talking about how long the camera shutter was open for. I'm not that great when it comes to talking photos, but using a shorter exposure should makes outdoor images sharper and have more colour. Foe example I took this image the other day and it's pretty sharp and colourful. I was playing around with the exposure time, and the setting the camera automatically chose left the image rather pale and you couldn't tell what the sky was like (sadly I deleted the image so can't show it to you). Some cameras allow you to manually set the length of exposure, and this is worth experimenting with (1/350 means 1/350 seconds). Photoshop is a useful tool after taking a photo, but it limits what you have to work with. In photoshop, I'd recommend darkening the photo a bit, play around and see what you think produces the best image. Nev1 (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The photobucket image is better, and is the one I'd use. Nev1 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Companies based in Peterborough
If you are going to do these things, please take the time to learn how to do them properly first. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The More I See
I have nominated The More I See, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/The More I See. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sceptre (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Essex
Hi, I noticed that you are based in Peterborough. I am taking this opportunity to invite you to join WikiProject Essex. We need your support at: WikiProject Council/Proposals/Essex. As a fellow member of wikiproject UK geography, please support us whilst we try to make a group. Thanks, Thomas888b(Say Hi) 19:31, 4 February 2011 (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) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mesh-29
Template:Mesh-29 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aspects (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)