User talk:Greggzuk

I appreciate your zeal for editing and your attempt at NPOV, but many of your statements are uncited and seem to be a form of vandalism (however factual you believe them to be). I don't support Nader or any other candidate from these elections, I am just trying to keep the vandals at bay. Adam McCormick 18:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader

You are close to violating the three-revert rule on this article. Please cool down, and take it to the discussion page. -- Pastordavid 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Ckatz^chat _spy 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Rickshaws

A conveyance systems enterprise based in Manhattan, Revolution Rickshaws produces effective cargo, passenger, OOH marketing, and logistics services. It sells, leases, services, and operates work trikes including pedicabs, freight trikes, flatbed trikes, and related accessories. Greggzuk (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Interest and Usury; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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.

Your comments here and elsewhere seem to indicate that you intend to keep restoring your wording, even though it has been challenged by multiple editors (four different people, at this point). Go to the article talk page and open a discussion there, and if you do get consensus in favour of your wording you can restore it. Not otherwise. bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Calidum. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Calidum 03:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this exchange works. Regardless, when an editor delivers clear language to a page only to face another editor who offers zero clarity on a reversion to an interpretative not factual passage, the clear-language editor is left with little option except to attempt other means of returning clarity not interpretation to the page. If the "interpretive" editor wishes to forgo engagement, such an editor is engaging in a violent act. He or she is not engaging the other editor in an exchange of ideas; he or she is only acting in an obstinate and disrespectful manner.

COVID-19 sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

I was going to post a notice template regarding your recent edit at Renaud Camus that was reverted. However, the standard notices didn't quite fit because you did leave a reasonable explanation in the edit summary. Here's why it was reverted. You noted that you eliminated the opinions and subjective inputs - actually, those items are coming from cited sources, which is how we do things here. We do not write our own opinions into the article. Encyclopedic content must come from reliable secondary sources, and that's what is being used in that article. Secondly, it's interesting that you noted you were fixing things that were subjective, but then changed "far-right websites" to "many websites". The term "many" is totally subjective (and thus would require some kind of secondary source to support such a claim). I don't necessarily disagree that the article needs work. You can look at the notes from Camus's publisher on the talk page and see what they are suggesting (Talk:Renaud Camus). Note however, that you have to do so within the bounds of what we do here. First, everything noted in the article must be verifiable using reliable sources (please read and understand those links). If it's not, it will be challenged and/or removed. If you do not understand how to go about that, this particular article may not be a good place to start. Some of what was suggested on the talk page wouldn't necessarily fly. You can't simply remove things that are reliably sourced. However, you can copyedit and reword things to use attribution (changing the voice) rather than as a stated fact. But only do that for things that actually are subjective. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You return subjective text to the post. Your logic that a link to one other subjective post acts as a threshold for legitimacy on Wikipedia is, well, you know.

I guess when I pull an objective link affirming my objective upgrades to this post, you will stand down. Give me a few days, as this stuff isn’t top of my list as it is for you.

You seem intelligent enough to understand that “right” and “left” effectively are modifiers not nouns in this context. I remove the modifiers and you seem to have some authority in Wikiworld to put them back and feel justified because somebody added a link from his or her favorite political Web site. I’m sure you’ll ban me somehow for sticking to facts at some point. Thanks in advance. Greggzuk (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you "pull an objective link affirming [your] objective upgrades", keep in mind that sources need to meet the criteria noted in WP:RS, not just something you found on the Internet. To save yourself some time, refer to this list of sources that have already been discussed by the community as either reliable, unreliable, or "no consensus". Using a source already deemed unreliable by the community would likely just be reverted. Likewise, don't remove already sourced information without a good reason why the existing source is unreliable, supporting why it fails the reliability test with reasons from our community guidelines. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]