User talk:Gravuritas

Welcome!

Hello, Gravuritas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --John (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Edits like this are not minor. Please do not mark them as such. --John (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John; thanks for the welcome, and the correction about minor edits- I'll spend a bit of time on the links you've posted to try to avoid further mistakes.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome; let me know if you need any help. --John (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Gravuritas. This was a nice addition and clarification to Mimeograph. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, hi, Herostratus (good name)- thanks for the thanks. As a new editor I've had some constructive criticism and someone spoiling for a fight, but mostly a sort of editing into the blue yonder where you wonder whether anybody's reading it! I've just had a look around WP and found the top 100 pages etc- do you know whether there is way of finding the viewing figures for e.g. Mimeograph, for instance, or whether it's just you and me that's seen it?

Gravuritas (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trade unions in the United Kingdom

Sorry for that revert. My mistake. ///EuroCarGT 18:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No probs.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Lothian question

Please revert what you have added to West Lothian question, per WP:BRD guidelines. Happy to discuss it on the talk page.

The article is not comparing NI to Scotland. It is suggesting that a possible solution to the West Lothian question would be to reduce the Scottish representation at Westminster to that below the standard ratio of MPs compared with the rest of the UK, as had happened previously in NI. It is suggesting that if the NI example was followed, Scotland would have below the standard ratio. The fact that Scotland currently has a higher ratio is not the point.

Besides that, the section is currently entirely uncited, so combining unsourced facts like this begins to look very like original synthesis. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I've put comment on west Lothian talk page. Gravuritas (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please read WP:Civility, we can discuss things without "utter twerp" or such rather inflammatory comments. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RSN

Gravuritas (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coating, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Primer and Pressure-sensitive (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) 11:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Stencil stylii.pdf

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

File:Stencil stylii.pdf

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is incomplete! Str1977 ^(talk) 16:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peak oil

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment

Peak oil, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Beagel (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --John (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You started the reversions by changing the wording away from 'A number of'. You haven't addressed the point of balance that I mention; you've committed a straw man error and don't appear to understand the normal English meaning of 'a number of'. Not much of a record in a couple of paras. I suggest you address the issues on Talk: Tony Blair and spend less time on threats of blocking.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't threatening to block you. I was warning you that edit-warring (three reverts) is a blockable activity. Try not to do it. --John (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what the source says

Here's some help if you need it: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/baisser Shii (tock) 21:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this should be on Talk:Peak oil

Gravuritas (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Wind power, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Chamith (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which word of "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)" (from WP:OR) are you having difficulty with?

Gravuritas (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wind power dispute

Hey Gravuritas, don't give up yet if you believe what you are doing is the right thing. So I opened a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I hope other editors will participate and help us to solve our little arguments . Cheers--Chamith (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.- Please don't forget to add a dispute summary of your own--Chamith (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Rudyard Kipling

I didn't say "was taken" is incorrect. But it's very awkward and my revised sentence corrects that problem. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Rudyard Kipling

Gravuritas (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Gravuritas. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Engineering...

Gravuritas, thanks for pulling back the edit on engineering. I was not a 100% happy with it either. I think the definition is missing what engineering is applied to i.e., finding a solution, a problem, a project, just not sure how to add that in cleanly... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rctillinghast (talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it so well. I think the opening sentence in the leader describes well the range of things that engineers do. I suspect you were trying to get to the purposes- why engineers do what they do- and that opens a can of worms. On the one hand most of the purposes are warm and cuddly- but on the other hand some purposes are more controversial (drowning a river valley for a hydro-electric or irrigation scheme); and we can all probably think of one or two really bad purposes to which engineering has been put. Have fun on WP! (and remember the 4 tildes as sig)

Gravuritas (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering vs Science

Sorry but I didn't quite understand your reason of reverting my change on the Engineering page. I just wanted to make the information more coherent here in wiki as both pages of applied sciences and Template:Science state that engineering is a subset of science in a broad sense, alongside healthcare. I'm a layman of this but would like to get a clearer picture. Biomedicinal (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2015

This would probably be better on the appropriate talk page, but here goes.

The Science Template as far as I can see is an attempt to introduce some tree and branch type order to a lot of fields, but the presence of any particular subject in any particular category, or in the template itself hardly constitutes a knock-down argument that this is the case. Try looking up "maths as science" in WP or elsewhere: highly debatable and the existence of maths in the Template:Science is useful but proves nothing.

Reverting to the meat of the argument: Science uses mathematics, but is not mathematics. Engineering uses science but is not science. There is a key difference, visible in the definitions of science and engineering that I have seen. Science involves finding out stuff about the world. Engineering involves doing things to the world. I'd suggest that applied science is finding out useful stuff about the world. Having worked with a lot of scientists and engineers, the difference is also seen in the typical personality types that are attracted to the two fields.

Further, as stated by another editor I think, the linkage of the word application to applied science makes a nonsense of the sentence syntax, as 'application' also included practical knowledge.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Got it. I'll figure it out more and thnaks! Biomedicinal (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2015

World Peace Council

In Nuclear disarmament you made an edit so that the WPC is not called a peace organisation. There is no doubt that it was a Soviet Front but it is regarded in reliable sources as a peace organisation. You may not regard it as such, but that is your POV and not for Wikipedia. Pelarmian (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source quoted refers to "combatants" including the World Peace Council. That's not enough to back up your claim that the WPC is a peace organization. Nor is "the clue is in the name", which can only be naïve. Please find something to back up your statement above.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Nuclear disarmament for further discussion. Pelarmian (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm Weegeerunner. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Nuclear disarmament seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed my ^{[citation needed]} because you view it as a POV? Don't be silly.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, slight misunderstanding. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting other editors' comments

I have reverted this edit of yours, in which you deleted other editors' comments from Talk:Capitalism with the not-very-informative summary of "Tricky". Was there any good reason why you would want to do that? Favonian (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the revert. No, I didn't want to do that: I was trying to add a comment but editing WP on an iPad, as I sometimes do, occasionally goes wonky. I haven't worked out whether it's a sw bug or my finger trouble: it has happened once before. Not only does the edit go wrong, though, I can't find a 'revert' option on WP on iPad, either, so I can't fix the problem myself immediately.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I eschew modern contraptions like "pads" and "smart" phones in favor of a practically steam-driven laptop. Favonian (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism

You are edit-warring on Capitalism and if you continue you may be blocked. TFD (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit-warring on Capitalism and trying to smokescreen it with a series of irrelevant and sloppy, or plain incorrect, posts on Talk, each of which is taking you about 3 seconds. If you'd tried harder to make a case (or even just tried at all) then I would have postponed the reverts. As it is, it's obvious you either don't have a case, or can't be arsed to make one, despite your blather about my sources being 'in a minority'. So stop wallying about and defend the offending para, as I suspect you are capable of, or concede.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EU referendum aftermath

I disagree with you since some sources (notably this one) state that the target is almost reached, and the guy apparently has people in place to launch the action. On top of which, even if it were dismissed (which I suspect it would be), a legal case against politicians claiming they have mislead the public is almost certainly unprecedented in the UK. This is Paul (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me admit that a legal case with legs (i.e. which a judge didn't throw out at an early stage), against a politician or group of politicians for having misled the public, would be notable enough to include. But this is several stages short of that situation. A guy has raised some money. Has he raised enough for even a preliminary opinion from a QC heavyweight enough to be more than a joke? The story says that someone is prepared to work at much less than their usual rates, but is that person the real McCoy or just a wannabe? If the brief is a heavy weight, how much money is he going to need to actually begin the action? Remember that the loser pays at least some of the winner's costs, so some meters start clocking up some serious money as soon as you begin the action: withdrawal part-way is very costly. And in the UK nothing happens on no-win no fee other than some ambulance-chasing. Judges in the UK are very keen on staying out of politics, so even if there was a sniff of a cause for action, all sinews would be strained to find a reason for throwing the case out. So all that's happened so far is peanuts and piffle, and the fact that the target has been or has not been reached is utterly insignificant: who says it's enough (oh- maybe the guy that chose the target. And his expertise is- unprecedented constitutional law? Maybe not)

Now the guy that started it is happy cos he wants publicity, and the Indy is happy because they have created an impression, i.e. smeared, some Brexit individuals as liars in a way that cannot be attacked as a libel. And you have participated in that smear. In the hope that is just naivete, wake up. If it's not naivete, utter, utter shame on you

Gravuritas (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was also mentioned by the Financial Times among others. By the way, please be civil, and do be careful about throwing around accusations. Suggesting people are attempting to smear others isn't a very sensible idea. I suggest you refrain from doing so in future. This is Paul (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was just about barely mentioned by the FT as a minor afterthought in an opinion piece about something else. Unimpressive. I don't 'throw around accusations'. I make a reasoned point above, and you are not engaging with either the reasoning or the supporting facts. Extend your reading beyond the Indy and the Guardian and you'll find that exaggerations and distortions were present on both sides of the campaign, and I would personally ascribe a greater blame to those who created these distortions as part of pre-planned, subedited, drafted and redrafted reports rather than those uttered on the spur of the moment in answer to a journo's question. Full-out lies were rare, and the crowdfunding case will go nowhere: in which case you should be asking yourself the question: why are certain newspapers/websites reporting it? If you can't see that as a smear, then you're not only naïve, you're refusing to wake up.

Gravuritas (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to check through my edit history you'll find that I use a multitude of sources from across the political spectrum (including the Telegraph, the Times, the Irish Independent, Irish Examiner, The Economist, etc), and have even expressed some concern about the availability of sources to balance the argument in this particular article. For example, many are forecasting a recession, but having a brother who's an economist (and who voted for Brexit incidentally) I know there are others who believe Britain's future prospects will be much more favourable. Suggesting I am naive is downright uncivil. Suggesting I am collaborating as part of a smear campaign against those who voted to leave the EU is an accusation, whether you choose to see it or not, and if you continue to make these allegations I will be mentioning you at WP:ANI. Good day to you, This is Paul (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will take your word for your edit history in general, but looking through the refs for the article in question there is a major leaning towards the Indy & The LES (owned by the Indy) with a sprinkling of the Guardian & the BBC, especially since the referendum, when parts of the media don't seem to want to accept the result, and also seem to glory in any signs of damage from the vote. The imbalance of refs should be sounding a warning to all experienced editors that the coverage may be biased. Your recent posting on the talk page shows that you are at least partly aware of the balance problem. Clearly, the actual results & consequences of the vote should be covered by the article, but the use of predictions post-referendum should be heavily downplayed. Furthermore, this a serious, serious issue with huge (genuine) consequences for many people, and in the midst of this then I am afraid that I view warbling about £27,000 or £100,000 as utterly trivial. When it's coupled to 'liars' and 'misconduct in public office' issues thrown at those who the Indy clearly regard as their political opponents, then it is just a smear. And if you further the aims of those doing the smearing, then 'naive' seems gentle enough. While this page is open to all, it must be one of the least-trafficked on WP and so we're not having much more than a private conversation. Complain to who you will.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have chosen to make reference to these allegations once again, a discussion is now open on the matter. You can find it here if you wish to contribute. This is Paul (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war with regard to the British Railway System

Hello there,

privately, you may believe whatever you want, but Wikipedia is truth land. Thanks! (Regarding [1]) --Mathmensch (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Please have a careful look at: Correlation does not imply causation. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the appropriate Talk page, and don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, sonny.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your tone is inappropriate, as well as your editing behaviour. You should most definitely refrain from depicting fringe theories as mainstream and truth, and you should treat others with a certain dignity. Further, please refrain from edit-warring. You have broken the three-edits rule with this edit, which also contains another inappropriate comment in the line of summary. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathmensch (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a constructive suggestion as to how you could move forward regarding the article, by editing small pieces and getting supportive evidence for each change, instead of globally smearing the whole article with your own POV paraphrase of one non-neutral source. If you'd read my comments more carefully you'd see that I have depicted very little as anything- you've just interpreted my opposition to your edit as support for everything currently in the article. I notice you've now applied for deletion of the whole article: where I come from that's called 'throwing your toys out of the pram'. You've also now bothered the administrators, who have better things to do than deal with tantrums. These actions of yours suggest a level of maturity commensurate with my little epithet above.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be polite

Hello there,

please comply with standard rules of politeness. I am displeased with your tone.--Mathmensch (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. My standard rules of politeness are:

1. Be polite

2. If someone ascribes views to me which I have not expressed, consider cancelling rule #1

3. If someone insults me by trying to teach me something basic like 'correlation does not mean causation', consider cancelling rule #1.

4. If someone implies that I have not told the truth, or supported untruthfulness, consider cancelling rule #1.

5. If someone performs each of 2, 3, or 4, cancel rule 1 without further consideration.

6. If someone accepts that they have transgressed rules 2,3, or 4, revert to rule 1.

I hope the rules of politeness are now clear to you. After having a tantrum, a toddler is often displeased with the person who corrects them. That's life.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

Using phrases such as, "Try not to be a twerp all of your life." in response to other users posts is also a sure fire way to a block for lack of civility. I note that you lack of civility has been brought up both here and at ANI previously. I suggest you ignore your set of rules above because the policy is no different for you than it is for anyone else. --Elektrik Fanne 15:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question tried an all-over edit on an existing page based on his unsourced, unwarranted opinion. When challenged on some bits of it for good, solid WP reasons, he proceeded to (unsuccessfully) complain about me, twice, and (unsuccessfully) tried to get the whole page deleted. He's still trying to lay down the law based solely on his POV. A person having that sort of little series of tantrums (tantra?) can be fairly described as a twerp, though on second thoughts that might be a bit too mild. When the twerp then follows me to a page in which he has formerly shown no interest, and starts to try to make a little gaggle with you because you and I are having a difference of opinion, then that makes him a stalking twerp. If you want to waste yours, my, and his time, then take it to wherever you want and we'll see which of stalking, sock puppetry, or lack of civility rank highest on the WP crime tariff. In the meantime, I suggest you let twerpikins defend himself and try to not to keep bad company.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm afraid you cannot describe any one as a twerp or indeed anything else uncivil. --Elektrik Fanne 16:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you wish for ...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent and unfounded allegation of Sock puppetry. Thank you.

Now you have made a third allegation, I'm not letting this go. --Elektrik Fanne 17:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it.

Right now. I'm not kidding. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. But I suspect that you haven't quite got the sequence of events clear, so I'll recap:

1. You and I have some differences of opinions about a train page.

2. You then run off and complain about me to Teacher, and get ignored by most and rebuffed by the one or two that can be bothered dealing with your complaint. That means you've bothered the wider WP community for nothing.

3. You then try to get the whole page deleted, and your proposal for deletion is currently going down about 10-0. That means you've bothered the wider WP editing community for nothing.

4. As you're getting nowhere again, you search around my other edits, track another editor with whom I am having a disagreement, and try to stir her/him up to found a little anti Gravuritas club on that totally-unconnected-to-railways page. On that page I describe you as you have acted.

5. Unfortunately for you, the editor who you have stirred to found the anti-G club then comes to my user page, and wishes to give me a lecturette, which I assume is an invitation to discuss my epithet. So I discuss it.

In short, you got described as you deserved, and because you stirred up another editor to discuss it with me, it got discussed again. So the lesson I suggest you take from this is- don't stalk me and don't try to set up little clubs against me: it may rebound on you. And if you want to bother the wider WP editing community for nothing again, you ornament of the WP community, then take a complaint forward. I may or may not be found guilty of incivility, and you will be even more widely shown to be a complete- .....sorry I can't even choose a word as so many come to mind.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'll just record here that I had noted from your off-topic addition to EF's ANI post that you had unnecessarily taken offence at one of my posts, and I thought I would try to reduce the area of our disagreements by offering an explanation on your user talk page. You've deleted it.

Gravuritas (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPS @Mathmensch I'll note that you've just posted something on this page under a new heading "Your anger...." and then deleted it.

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin incidents board

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Mathmensch (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You appear to be being rather unpleasant to your fellow editors. You know exactly how. Please stop doing so. Thanks fish&karate 14:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate. Elektrik Fanne has filed a complaint several days ago at ANI about my alleging that she and another IP editor were sock puppets. If you have concluded that my evidence for this was inadequate, then the proper place to say so is on the relevant section of ANI, not here. If you are referring to Mathmensch, then he has just filed a complaint at ANI. Most people allow some sort of response from the accused before rushing to judgement: maybe you could do the same? If you are referring to anybody else, then I'm not aware of any recent unpleasantness: maybe you could give me some more particulars.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The unpleasantness is the comments directed at mathmensch. I don't know what the other thing is about. All I know is that the comments you made to mathmensch were impolite and unhelpful. Please do not continue to talk to your fellow editors in that way. We're all trying in our own way to improve Wikipedia. That even includes when interacting with people you thoroughly disagree with. I'm not particularly interested in a long discussion about this. Be nice, or be gone. Thanks. fish&karate 20:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MM opened a complaint against me a couple of days ago on ANI, which Imthink you are aware of. I've made a response there, which I request that you take the time to read, and I don't think parallel extra conversations here are appropriate. If you wish to hold to your rushed judgement, and have no interest in being more fully informed, then I'm really not interested in your opinion.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI closures

I've just closed two threads about you at ANI, so please review my closing statements. In short, you are to use the appropriate venue for initiating sockpuppet investigations if you have evidence. Do not make such comments or allegations anywhere else, or you will be blocked. Also, knock off the silly insults and childish remarks. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am now more aware than I had been of the seriousness with which WP takes SP issues, and your warning on that issue is noted, taken on board, and will guide my future actions. Thank you for that.

For the rest, there are issues touching on what I think is called WP:CRUSH and repeated illogic, which seem to be difficult for WP to handle.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm John. I noticed that you recently removed some content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.--John (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the editing note was fairly clear, but I'll expand on the relevant talk page. Previous problems that remained in certain areas in 2004 may or may not have been due to policies two decades earlier. It's now 2016.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gravuritas. 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)[reply]

Talk:Tony Blair

Hi,

I notice that you asked at the discussion how much of an impact Blair "shagging the UK constitution" had had? I just wondered whether this was a typo... Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a typo. I was trying to take a couple of examples of Blair's impact in order to push those eds who believe in the pre-eminence of the Iraq War in his impacts, to justify their position. My suspicion, fwiw, is that his high profile world-wide with respect to the Iraq was not matched by his actual position within the Coalition- I suspect that Bush did pretty much what he intended to do, with or without Blair. That suspicion will eventually stand or fall by some sort of historical verdict, though it may be too early for those verdicts to have come in yet. So I reached for two other examples of Blair's impacts, one positive and one negative. By 'shagging the UK constitution' I firstly had in mind his stuffing of the HoL with hundreds of his cronies when the unelected fossils were removed, under the promise that this was only a temporary state of affairs, though I probably also had chilcott's findings about sofa governmen which made it impossible to tell which documents had been seen when, by whom, and who had taken certain decisions. Gravuritas (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, just thought I should check! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poll tax

Hi Gravuritas. What's your opinion on adding a hatnote to Community Charge at the Poll tax article? I was reverted and I left a comment at the talk page.--Nevé –selbert 22:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look over the w/e.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vladimir Lenin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DrKay (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DrKay (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stay out of ANI here. But did you honestly think that twerpikins, in the context of that discussion, was going to pass by without giving offence? However you intended it, I have no trouble whatsoever understanding that it gave offence to others. I don't think you are here just to stir needless drama (I mean, if you are, let me know and I'll just indef you and get it over with) but would you consider going back to that talk page and striking 'twerpikins' and perhaps even apologising? As far as I can see, it's either that or a long drama session at ANI with a far from certain outcome and I know which I'd prefer. Up to you, of course; I'm just hoping that you'll do the decent thing rather than see mounds of editors' time go into a pointless dramafest. GoldenRing (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On that article and the associated talk page, I have had cites deleted for the flimsiest of reasons; edits stonewalled; and repeatedly been accused of POV-pushing. DrKay started an ANI incident against me only a couple of days ago and then abandoned it. My involvement on Talk pages recently has gone through the roof, because of this nonsense. I even had to start a talk thread recently called 'Lay off' in which even the editor involved admitted she'd been over-eager in blocking my edits (on ipad, difficult to find link, sorry- think it was on Talk: Joseph Stalin). In the case at ANI that you are referring to, an editor has started again a critical thread, made accusations against me, then, when challenged, has left the accusations unsubstantiated and tried to close off the thread as off-topic. Don't you think unfounded accusations of bad faith cause offence to me? Have you asked the editor involved to 'do the decent thing', withdraw, and apologize? The page involved has already been nothing but drama fest. If you look at the thread,I initially tried hard to be emollient & civil, but without conceding the field to the hypocrites. Given that the accusations against me are standing there on the Talk page, I would rather that my opinion of the editor involved also stays there. I clearly intended it to offend the editor involved, as I can see no other way to get him and the other editor chiefly involved to stop- I don't know what the WP term is- to stop this treatment. They have a cosy little cabal and are trying to block any input which does not match their particular viewpoint. The problem is that the normal remedies: dropthestick, cooling off, getalife etc, if I do them, are precisely what these editors want, and leaves the article with its current holes unmodified. I guess there is enough there to have started one or two ANI issues myself, but that is not my way. I regret very much the timewaste by other editors in an ANI incident, but I do defend myself when attacked, however, which is the current situation on Talk:Lenin.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the way you want to play it then it's up to you, I guess. I would say, though, that from my experience, offending people is not the way to get them to stop, it only stokes things further - and since this is now at ANI, that's clearly the case here. It's not going to win them over to your point of view - and I don't expect that the ANI crowd are going to take sympathetically to your strategy of deliberately offending people to try to win an argument. It's not the sort of style that goes down well there. Better to do all you can to discuss it amicably, in my view, but that's only advice; you're free to ignore it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your well-intentioned posts to resolve this without fuss- thankyou- but I am not offending anyone to win an argument: I am offending someone in order to avoid being continuously picked on. An apology would just encourage the bullies.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As you are showing no sign of moderating your incivility, but in fact appear to be defending it as a valid tactic to use against alleged "bullies", your incivility is going to have to be stopped for you - and so you are now temporarily blocked from editing. Please consider this short block as a warning for the future, and be aware that further such incivility will be met with longer blocks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have anything further you wish to add to the ANI discussion, please post it here and I (or someone else) will copy it across for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Boing! said Zebedee Not complaining, but just letting you know in case you carry out a similar block on someone in future- the block applied to me also included this page, so when I tried to add something here, it was blocked.
- Gravuritas (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just talk to him man to man instead of being a sook about it and blocking him? - 6SyXx6 —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yes, I missed out the vital word "sack" in my edit on the Margaret Thatcher article. Many thanks for adding it.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin

Please do not keep reverting sourced material. I have informed Midnightblueowl for a third opinion. Do not escalate this into an edit war. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to the relevant talk page, as requested.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit

You probably won't need it, but I've updated the Brexit talk page to show which editors have been blocked indefinitely. The IP currently claiming talk page consensus about the lead could be pointed towards the update (although it wouldn't make much difference; maybe the IP is one of the blocked editors trying again). EddieHugh (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DS Notice

Hypocrisy removed Gravuritas (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

prokaryotes (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the general notice on topics involving climate change, in regards to your edit at sea level rise, if you feel information is missing - add it in, instead of removing parts which are considered reliable sourced. I've added the mention of the 1.7 feet for that scenario, fits well into the article. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve tried to ram through a lop-sided extract of one scenario from an article that contains three studies and various scenarios. You’ve tried to justify this by little edit comments, instead of taking it to talk. You’ve told me what I need to do to fix your biased edit. You’ve then accused me of disruptive editing, and then you’ve finally added a sufficient fix to remove some of the bias. The current edit is just about tolerable, but why make the process so hard?

Gravuritas (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Private finance initiative

Hi - You have twice now removed properly sourced information from this article. I am completely at a loss at what you are trying to do but to leave just half the sentence without the citation clearly does not work. Dormskirk (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the relevant talk page, which is the correct place for this discussion.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at Brexit shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

That's not how the 3RR restriction works. Everyone ALWAYS believes that their edits are "right" and other people's edits are "wrong". It's no excuse for reverting. Please self-revert your last edit. Volunteer Marek 22:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What works is making your case on the talk page. If you don’t wish to engage with the discussion there, your edit or revert cannot stand if challenged. And to be specific with an example, I’ve several times challenged the weird usage in the Brexit article which was that short-term effects were after long-term effects. Until and unless you make a reasonable case as to why the Brexit article should depart from common usage this way, then my edit is ‘right’, not because I think so, but because no-one has made a case to the contrary. So cut the bullshit references to WP rules which are red herrings; cut the sarky comments about right, wrong, and POV, and get to the red meat of the points on which we are differing. Then I hope we can get to some agreed wordings.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your "case" on the talk page consists of "I don't like academic economics". I can't present "a case" against that, since you gonna feel what you gonna feel. It's impossible to reply with a rational argument to a non-argument. Regardless, none of this justifies edit warring and removing well sourced text. But hey, have it your way - link to AN/3RR below. Volunteer Marek 23:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my recent discussions and edits on Brexit and its associated talk page have revolved around academic economists, yes. But this is not a general discussion around academic economics, or economists, it is a set of specific comments/ surveys/ articles concerning economic forecasts. There seems to be a view from you and one other editor that 'academic' in a source automatically trumps all. I have challenged, and now repeat that challenge, that you product evidence to show that your selected academics count as experts in this specific field, i.e not economics in general, but economic forecasting applied to an unusual sort of event i.e. Brexit. So far you've failed to support your contention that these guys have a record worth more than a bucket of spit. Why don't you do so now? Again, if you can't provide evidence that these guys are any good in this field, then your assertion that they are WP:RS evaporates.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources are considered reliable - in fact, very reliable - by Wikipedia's policy WP:RS and WP:V. I don't particularly care to get into useless philosophical discussions with random people on the internet. All I need from you is for you to abide the policies of the encyclopedia you're editing on. Volunteer Marek 23:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have misunderstood the policy. academic sources are considered reliable by WP when written by experts in their field. One of my main points has been to question whether the academics that you wish to cite are experts in the field of economic forecasting. That’s not a philosophical discussion- it’s a highly specific, practical one which you are avoiding for the n’th time. As you’re prepared to witter away repeatedly, but not to answer that charge, I assume that you consider answering it- i.e. demonstrating that your experts are indeed expert forecasters- is not possible. So why not admit it?

Gravuritas (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek 23:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits at Talk:Brexit may suggest that you are editing that article to advance a personal point of view, and not just make a balanced summary of what reliable sources have reported. Should this continue, and should you continue to insult the capacities of other editors ("swallow this garbage") you are risking a block. It might help the administrators to close this complaint properly if you will reply at the noticeboard and promise to stop insulting other editors. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have incorrectly represented my views, e,g. the current edit warring allegation refers to my ‘dislike of academic economists’ which is untrue. May I ask whether you have made similar requests to them to stop smearing me? It appears from previous experience that WP collectively is keen on politeness- fair enough- but far too lenient on liars.

Gravuritas (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The possible bad behavior of others does not excuse your own. I look forward to having you reply at the noticeboard and agree to refrain from personal attacks on the article talk page. Your use of the term 'liars' suggests that you are not getting the point and that the talk page might be better off without your contributions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and POV-pushing at Brexit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for Personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand the inclusion of ‘POV-pushing’ in this header. Apart from the false assertion that I dislike academia, no evidence has been put forward that I was POV-pushing, there has been no discussion of it, and you, EdJohnston, have included no reasoning to support such a view. I request that you remove POV- pushing from this record. I reacted to the false assertion, so I plead guilty to ‘personal attacks as defined by WP. But POV-pushing? Come off it.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR again

Your recent editing history at Brexit shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

And here you are at 3 reverts on Brexit. Again. Volunteer Marek 18:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You alleged 3RR last week, and it was not upheld. Are you feeling lucky this week?

Gravuritas (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gravuritas. 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)[reply]

Dispute

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding challenging sources. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Cold War#Secret_treaties,_#Russian_revolution_section".The discussion is about the topic Cold War. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at Brexit shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Again.

@VM Bold, revert, talk. Simples. Tag-teaming with Snoo to insert this propaganda while a discussion has been started is not cricket, old sport.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Brexit

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Brexit and stop being a twat.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gravuritas. 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)[reply]