User talk:Gravuritas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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)

Minor edits[edit]

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

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)

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


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

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)

Trade unions in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

No probs.
Gravuritas (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

West Lothian question[edit]

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)

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


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)

Please see WP:RSN
Gravuritas (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

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)

Better source request for File:Stencil stylii.pdf[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

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)

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

Peak oil[edit]

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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. 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)

Good article reassessment[edit]

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)

June 2014[edit]

Stop icon

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)

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)
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)

Yes, that is what the source says[edit]

Here's some help if you need it: Shii (tock) 21:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

this should be on Talk:Peak oil
Gravuritas (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Information icon 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)

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)

Wind power dispute[edit]

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 Face-smile.svg. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Re Rudyard Kipling[edit]

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)

See Talk:Rudyard Kipling
Gravuritas (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
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. Message added by Yunshui  13:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.


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 (talkcontribs) 18:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

Engineering vs Science[edit]

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)

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

World Peace Council[edit]

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)

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

May 2015[edit]

Information icon 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)

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

Deleting other editors' comments[edit]

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)

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)
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)


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

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)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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)

EU referendum aftermath[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)