User talk:Justgravy

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Justgravy! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Marek.69 talk 22:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In London postal district, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Sutton (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) 10:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Paul Dacre. Thank you. bobrayner (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Grand Union Canal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West London (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) 10:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defining London

Hi. I removed to addition to County of London for a couple of reasons, one being it had no sources. I suspect, in fact, that the idea of London you were describing has more to do with whether an area was included in the London postal district or not, rather than if it was under the LCC. As an example, I have (old) relatives from Leytonstone and West Ham who would NEVER describe either place as in Essex, and are proud Londoners. Ilford on the other hand....

So if there is a place for the discussions, suitable references attached, then I would suggest either Postal counties of the United Kingdom or London postal district, not the County of London article.Lozleader (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail Political Slant

Please stop altering the Daily Mail Political slant to "Right Wing". The Daily Mail supports the Conservative Party and always has done. We had a long debate about this on the TALK PAGE and agreed consensus that "Right Wing" was not acceptable as it is not a neutral term. You are trying to use it simply as a derogatory term which I find quite offensive. I am a right-leaning person myself politically and I don't take kindly to being frowned upon for having an opinion which differs your's. There is nothing wrong with being right-wing, I am not ashamed of it and there is no reason why I should. This seems like a personal crusade for you to smear the Mail. You might think in YOUR opinion that "so many hate the Mail" but many people me included like it so please don't insult the readers of the Mail with such comments. Wikipedia is not a place for your personal opinions it is a factual encyclopedia. The fact is the Mail supports the Conservatives. I actually read the DM and I am a Conservative supporter so I know this for a fact. Please stop changing the article but feel free to bring it up on talk page. If you keep changing it without using the talk page this can constitute vandalism which violates Wikipedia policy. Thank You. Christian1985 (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for saying this, but you are simply right-wing scum. I suppose you worship Hitler and pray that someone will one day complete his “noble work”. I suppose that you think that homosexual people should be given the death penalty, and that potentially life-saving stem-cell research labs should be burnt to the ground. I also suppose that you wish that you could meet the person in this video: http://www.twitpic.com/5exbfg , so that you can shake his hand, worship him, and tell him that he is amazing. I understand that you are a campaigner for the NF, BNP and EDL; however, I think that you are one of those people whose mother dropped him on his head, repeatedly, at a young age, so I cannot really hold anything which is beyond your control against you. It is scientifically proven that right-wing voters are less intelligent than left-wing voters (about the only article in your worthless paper that is not worthless drivel), so I know that this is difficult for you to comprehend. But If you send me your address I will be happy to send you a colouring-in book and some crayons.

So yes, of course I am using it as a derogatory term, I would like nothing better than for Northcliffe House to be burnt to the ground, preferably with your puppet master Paul Dacre locked in a cupboard inside. And do you honestly think that I care that I “offended” or “insulted” you? Good! If I could, I would come round there (and every other readers house) and slap you with a semen-filled condom, seen as you are a “Man of God” and think that all birth control is “evil”.

But none of this bothers you does it? Because you are probably sat there in your £30,000,000 Oxshott Mansion with your Beluga Caviar, Dom Perignon Champage, Macallan Whiskey, and fine Cuban Cigars. Thinking how superior and above me you are because you are so ridiculously wealthy, and money is the best way of measuring how good and morally sound a person is? You make me literally want to throw my guts up.

So in the words of Rage Against The Machine: “FUCK YOU I WON’T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME”.

Please do not write personal attacks and abuse on my talk page. Any further incidences will be reported to the Administrators as it is a strong violation of Wikipedia policy. There is no need for such disgusting language. Christian1985 (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scared of the truth I guess? Never mind you'll get whatever it is that you deserve in the end. And P.S. The "language" which you are referring to is a quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ , if you have a problem with it I suggest you take it out with RATM not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgravy (talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dude...just chill out Justgravy. Everybody gets their own opinions and maybe what you think is right seems insanely messed up to other people. Americanlover88888888 —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Arriva London. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Charles (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. 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. This is unacceptable. WormTT · (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if you don't like the person? Ignore them, avoid them, just don't post at all. This is meant to be a collaborative environment and tirades like that help no one. There's no need for personal politics to come into it. WormTT · (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Justgravy. You have new messages at Kimelea's talk page.
Message added 14:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~ Kimelea (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied again. Would you like me to keep leaving these talkback notices here or have you watchlisted my talk page? ~ Kimelea (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And again (both Christian and me), some days ago now :) If you'd like to keep chatting but it would be easier for you to do it here, just say! ~ Kimelea (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Thank you for your recent contributions. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Span (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

London postal region

See Talk:London postal district#London postal region for the explanation of why I again removed the list of Greater London postcode districts that you reinserted into the "London postal region" section. I don't know what webpage you were referring to when you commented that the Royal Mail website supports the list. If you disagree, please reply on the article talk page. Thanks. 19:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Welling railway station

What do you mean by "Reference does not work anyway"? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference stating the distance does not lead to anything it just shows a load of links leading to looking up information for different books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgravy (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 July 2012‎
The reference is indeed a book: but that is no reason to remove sourced information - it satisfies the policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lennox Lewis

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lennox Lewis. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Jahalive (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe I'm wrong about vandalism. Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable, published sources. The discussion forum you linked to is not a reliable, published source so unless that nickname is used by those kind of sources it can't be included. For more information on reliable sources please read WP:RELIABLESOURCES--Jahalive (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So hang on a minute, lets say hypothetically, if Lennox Lewis came onto Wikipedia himself, and added the nickname on, someone else would remove it saying that it is not reliable, even though the article is about him and he was the one editing his OWN article?! Because if that is the case it would be like me saying to a complete stranger what my DOB is and them saying no that's not right!

So please answer me the question, do you know Lennox Lewis better than Lennox Lewis does?

The answer to your hypothetical question is yes, but it would be like saying that if your DOB can not be verified by a reliable, published source it should not be in Wikipedia. The nickname should be removed unless it is used in a reliable source.--Jahalive (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia is actually stupid then, no wonder Universities explicitly say DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA when doing essays, dissertations etc. And for a website to know a person better than the person themself, one stage further and it looks like the events at the end of Terminator 3 might actually come into fruition after all!

Also there is one more reliable source as to his nickname, although it disappears from the web after each week it is published, but it was in "The Bexley Times" on 19th July 2012.

Maybe these resources can help you find that reference: Wikipedia:Linkrot#Web archive services--Jahalive (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Bexleyheath railway station with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 00:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me where do you live?!

August 2012

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Arriva London. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Charles (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth are you on about "http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/businessandpartners/buses/tenderresults/route.aspx?btID=538" here's a Source is this ok?!

It would be if it was added to the article as an inline citation. See WP:Citing sources. You can not add uncited material.--Charles (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Archant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southeast London (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) 04:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hoxton. 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. — Scott • talk 11:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but a map - even if published by the London Assembly - that doesn't even say "Hoxton" on it is not a valid reference. I also suggest that you do not attempt to redefine the East End of London, the location of which is a matter of historical record. That article explicitly mentions Hoxton several times, because Hoxton is within the old East End.

If you want to make the assertion that Hoxton is in what is currently considered to be central London, you need to find a reliable source that states it in writing.

I'm also warning you to knock off the passive-aggressive edit summaries. — Scott • talk 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can do ordinary aggressive if you want?!

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Snowysusan 02:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Justgravy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London.
Message added 08:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a courtesy notification in case you didn't see it elsewhere - please feel free to remove it. DBaK (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: attempts to redefine London and uncivil editing

Someone has had reason to object to your change to Petticoat Lane Market; that means you need to spend time on the talk page working out how to resolve the issue, working to build consensus. "It's 2 against 1" is not doing that. Even if that was to be taken as a measure, it would mean that fully a third of involved parties were in disagreement, which is clearly not consensus.

Likewise, as DBaK points out, you were wrong to make a threat. If you really can't come to an agreement on a talk page, you can request comments from other editors on the topic.

I've just been inspecting your other recent edits. You appear to be on a mission to change our coverage of London to agree with your personal map of the city. In some cases I have let the edits stand, in others I have not. Regardless of that, you need to stop doing this, now, until you can find a reliable source for each and every change of this nature that you want to make. If you make further uncited changes to London geographical articles on the subject of area locations or boundaries after having received this warning, it will be taken as deliberate disruption and you will be temporarily blocked from editing.

Also. Earlier on this talk page, you wrote this:

I can do ordinary aggressive if you want?!

I chose to ignore this at the time. However, having now seen the way in which you have interacted with other editors (such as this edit comment and this abuse on a user's talk page), I'm now issuing you a further warning. This is entirely unacceptable. If you are uncivil, make personal attacks or leave aggressive comments again, you will likewise be blocked from editing.

If blocks are issued for either of these reasons, any repeat incidences after they have expired will incur you subsequent, longer blocks. — Scott • talk 09:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited London Borough of Bexley, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Belvedere and West Heath (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) 11:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

phuc yu!

Americanlover88888888 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non...no. Its my name Im Vietnamese my name is Phuc Yu. whats your name?

see? Americanlover88888888 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some boba

thanks sexy hunk;) Derpwaste1 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Information icon Hello, I'm Technopat. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Bird College shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. —Sladen (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rob Knox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southeast London (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) 23:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Midtown, London concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Midtown, London, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to London Borough of Sutton may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [Belmont railway station|Belmont, Sutton]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hammersmith tube station (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) 11:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Belgravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West London (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) 10:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Holland Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to West London
Paddington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to West London
Pimlico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to West London

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Knightsbridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to West London
Sloane Square (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to West London

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suburbs

If you insist on labelling all these areas of outer London as suburbs than you should cite your source – presumably http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/archives/uploads-tr11_villages.pdf – on each and every occasion. "Suburban" carries negative connotations, and unless you provide this or another suitable citation then it comes across as a subjective description – your point of view rather than encyclopaedic – and is more likely to be deleted. Headhitter (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be an inline citation within the article itself, not just in the comment box. Headhitter (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should I do this with other London districts that already say that? Sorry but it just seems you are saying "HISS Richmond Upon Thames is mine, and woe betide anyone who makes an edit on a relevant article that offends me. I do not care about any of the other boroughs, so any edit you make to these is fine." Justgravy (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly didn't say that: I said "all these areas of outer London" and yes, wherever the location, I think they should each have a citation. Headhitter (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Dartford, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er I've been editing for years and it is constructive because London = Greater London but obviously London is the less ambiguous term?
What is ambiguous about Greater London? Nothing. London on the other hand could just be the City of London.--Charles (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone could presume it's Central London, County of London or if they were that stupid London Colney in Hertfordshire .... So Greater London is the sensible solution as opposed to just London. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why is the article on London called "London" and not "Greater London"?

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cross-platform interchange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hammersmith tube station (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) 08:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

I see that your behavior has not improved in the last two years. This is your final warning, following the one I gave you in #September 2012. If you participate in any more edit wars, such as you have been doing at Pimlico, or make any change to the definition of a location of a geographic area (such as changing "central London" to "west London") without providing a reliable source backing up the change that you are making, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Being unblocked will require you to demonstrate to an administrator that you are making a commitment to not do either of those things again. — Scott • talk 21:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a schoolboy so do not threaten me. Justgravy (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't act like a schoolboy and you won't be treated like one, Simples!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copying what I just wrote in edit summary at Shoreditch: it was an accidental revert. I immediately restored your edit. What you just reverted was a later edit. Please check history before hitting the revert button. — Scott • talk 11:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include the Charing Cross distances, it turns out the infoboxes have dedicated fields for it. See the edit I just made to Notting Hill. Including it as text directly in the first paragraph is too detailed for the lead, which is supposed to contain a general overview of the topic of an article. — Scott • talk 21:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But half the London districts have it, could you please change those too? Justgravy (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been doing that and will continue to as I encounter them. — Scott • talk 22:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited London Plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stratford. 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) 11:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

Please read.--Aspro (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Battersea. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Disagreeing, fine. Asking "are you an idiot?" in an edit summary, unhelpful. McGeddon (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question, "you are an idiot" is an insult, I did not say that! Justgravy (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, for future reference in your day-to-day life, saying "You said X - are you an idiot?" to someone implies that you think only an idiot would say X, making it an insult to the person who has just said X. If you assume good faith you do not need to check whether other editors are idiots. --McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melanie C, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southeast London. 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) 09:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Kensington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West London. 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) 09:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Orpington. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Charles (talk) 08:02, 21 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) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Belgravia
added a link pointing to West London
Knightsbridge
added a link pointing to West London

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Justgravy. 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]

Disruptive Editing - London Boroughs and Historic Counties

I see that you have yet again been changing articles to suit your WP:POV. I think this amounts WP:Disruptive Editing. Despite being an editor for several years, I can see that you have been warned several before about this style of editing, nearly all relating to London articles. The topic of historic Kent and Greater London has debated many times in various places and your constant failure to accept that 1965 changed administration areas, not historic county boundaries, is WP:DONTGETIT. Why not discuss on a talk page instead of constantly changing back? Alternatively, why not use your undoubted editorial skills on articles elsewhere: wikipedia is much larger than just London? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I have copied this reply from 'justgravy' from my talk page so as to keep comments together) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Roger
Please allow me to retort your comments. I am not editing to suit my own POV. I accept that historic counties have yet to be abolished (unlike the old divisions of other countries whose governments have done a great job in not confusing their citizens as to which part of the country they can call home). Yes, in my honest opinion I do believe that the historic counties should be formally abolished by the UK Government. Until that happens, all I ask is for some consistency for every area linked to from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_of_London
I also believe that the historic county should not be listed in the opening section of the article, but I have no problem with it appearing in subsequent paragraphs. I also ask you, why is it that these county divisions bear such importance? Why not list Mercia or Wessex in these articles? Finally, in terms of “the historic counties” what constitutes “London”? Justgravy (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"I accept that historic counties have yet to be abolished". This is a pretty clear POV, is it not? Logically, historic counties can never be abolished, a point I ask you to consider. I do not want to spend much time on this but please read a discussion on the Welling talk page for more detail if you are still confused about what happened in 1965. Rather than using a Wikipedia article, above, to justify your opinions, could you please use the guidelines instead. Take a look at WP:UKTOWNS for guidance on how to structure the lead to any relevant article. Another useful guide is WP:COMMONNAME. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 92 traditional counties of the UK (39 in England) have existed for around 1000 years, they were established centuries before parliament came into existence and so no legislation has ever or could ever change, move or abolish the real traditional counties. The Local Government Act of 1888 created local government areas loosely based on the counties, then subsequent legislation in 1965 and 1972 repealed that Act and established new areas of local government. Modern ceremonial, administrative or preserved counties are merely administrative creations whose boundaries are fluid and can change to suit various needs they are not the true geographic counties whose boundaries are static and can't be changed.DonaldsonAC (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  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.

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. –Davey2010Talk 14:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Justgravy. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Justgravy. 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]

London standardisation RFC

The RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages is still open, please wait for it to be closed before citing it as a justification for article lead edits. Thanks. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep Wikipedia:Indentation in mind, particularly during an RFC where readers would expect unindented threads to be new people commenting, or new points being raised? If you're just replying to someone else's comment, put a ":" (or however many are needed) at the start of the line to indent it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Justgravy! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Can somebody please close our discussion and RFC, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Bexleyheath shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Talk page discussion should be instead of reverting, not as well as. Lord Belbury (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to them!Justgravy (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is it's one rule for me and one rule for them? If I make a BOLD edit it has to reverted and then discussed and I'm not allowed to reinstate it? If someone else makes a BOLD edit and I try to revert it, it gets reinstated and then discussed? You cannot see the hypocrisy in that?Justgravy (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please show me where it says that a BOLD edit is allowed to remain whilst discussion takes place.Justgravy (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. All I was flagging here was that you'd reverted the same content three times: a fourth time would have been grounds for a block by anyone who felt like reporting it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know about the 3RR. You didn't answer my question either. Why is it okay for people to treat me like this, but as soon as I treat them back like it, it is I again who am in the wrong? I am growing tired of the poor treatment and one rule for me and one rule for everyone else I am receiving from other users here. Justgravy (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]