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)

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)

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)

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)

May 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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: 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.''
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)

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)

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