Welcome!
Hello, Herb-Sewell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
Bhadani 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you've read the talk on the episode page or the guidelines of the List of Episodes project, but I feel the new format is an improvement. Known Shen Gong Wu already tracks each Shen Gong Wu, and the episode pages will all mark the exchanges when I'm done with them. Using the list of episodes as a Shen Gong Wu tracker instead of an episode guide is not helpful to people who are not fans of the show already, and I would like to remind you that this is an encyclopedia not a fan site. But please voice your opinion at Talk:List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes so we can build to more of a consensus. Jay32183 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- If we find it necessary we can remove the pictures, there is actually a template for that already built. There is a posting on the List of Episodes project so people who are unfamiliar with the show may start chiming in and helping out. Ryulong and I are doing are best at getting the episode summaries, if you want to help then do so and if not just give us some polite reminders on ones that are missing and we'll get to them as soon as we can. I do watch edits on the page so I should be able to get to them while I'm not at work. Jay32183 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Walther p38 l.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sizingupomi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:2003_10_silversteinl.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Larry Silverstein.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I have the article iPod on my watchlist, and so I check out changes to many articles. When I checked the diff for your last edit to the iPod article, I found that you changed the type of "incorrect title" template used at the top. Since it seems to me that the Template:Lowercase template is clearer and more appropriate, I'm curious as to why you changed it. I'd like to change it back, but I think it's a good idea to question why you changed it first, since you probably have a good reason for doing so. What is that reason? Thanks, Nihiltres 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- P.S.: My reference point.
As above per Nihiltres. Template: Lowercase is clearer. Why did you change it? Tom H 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Larry Silverstein.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to
the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hbdragon88 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sizingupomi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to the page
Death of Adolf Hitler has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you. —
Jeff G. (
talk|
contribs) 00:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Abacus has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
Reaper Eternal (
talk) 03:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Please consider how we can work together towards consensus at Talk:Ipse dixit#Humpty Dumpty. In this context, you may want to notice a small addition at Nominalism#History here. -- Ansei ( talk) 16:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not super attached to absolutely having the date for the Chicago Times article, even though Cornell University says it was the next day on another link. Since you didn't respect BRD and reverted my first reversion, and then I failed to call you on it and we both continued, now we're both at risk of getting blocked for 3RR violations, so I'll let it stay as is. It's okay that way anyway. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 08:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't what was the purpose of that canned, generic response, but it was an eminent waste of time on my part for me to read it and I would imagine for you to post it. Indeed, you're hardly in a position to send me Wikipedia guidelines considering that you technically broke the three-revert rule in that last edit.-- Herb-Sewell ( talk) 08:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is a pity if it fell on deaf ears, for
WP:AGF is a key Wikipedia policy. More importantly, your accusation that I "technically broke the three-revert rule" is false:
1st revert,
2nd revert,
3rd revert. My next (and so far latest) edit there was
this one, which merely fixed grammar.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 08:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to make a suggestion about my behavior, don't use some cookie-cutter response that has no argumentative weight; a sanctimonious attitude won't make it for your arguments for you and it's not consistent with making sarcastic comments as edit summaries. About that "false" assertion, I was the one who made that
mistake. Unless you can find an exception to the three-revert rule that includes grammatical corrections, you broke it. Q.E.D.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 08:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Following your reasoning, the folks at
WP:GOCE have violated
WP:3RR many times without getting blocked.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 08:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- It only applies if an edit war is occurring, which would be rare for editors who merely correct grammar. In this case, all the conditions for a three-revert violation were fulfilled by that last edit.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- No; reverting is the definition of edit war. Following your definition of revert—removing or rewriting anything—
WP:3RR has been broken by about 90% of Wikipedia's most active editors.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 09:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- And you "perform[ed] more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Unless you can cite another standard, you broke the three-revert rule. I'm not going to contest or allow your statistic; it's irrelevant.
WP:EW applies to every editor.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Part of the problem with your reasoning is that you assume that Wikipedia policies are written by infallible beings. They are not. They are the work of humans, which is why we also have
WP:IAR. (Did I improve Wikipedia by fixing grammar there? I believe I did.) Let's quote
WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." If anyone took that literally, this would have resulted in a block:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4]. But the user who did those edits won't get blocked because of those edits, and I'm sure you know that.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 09:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your argument directly contradicts the text of
WP:EW: "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a
bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR)..." But even then, your argument becomes even more inconsequential, and it is clear that you are merely toppling a straw man. The rest of that sentence I quoted reads, "the violation of which often leads to a block." I didn't say your action would lead to a block. I merely said that you "technically broke the three-revert rule." (Note that in order to maintain that what I said was false, this is the statement that has to be disproved.) The reference of
WP:IAR compounds irrelevancy upon irrelevancy. Just because you can ignore rules under certain situations doesn't mean you are unable to simultaneously break them.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are trying to achieve here. You don't appear to mind my edits as much as my alleged sarcasm. Are you expecting an apology? When I said that "similar" is a common word, I was just pointing out why some of the article's information was added by me. I'm not interested in insulting anyone, and I can't recall insulting or mocking even vandalism-only accounts and sock puppets. I have no interest in offending you—that's just not my character. The content dispute is over, and I'd rather continue my work on improving Wikipedia.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are trying to achieve here. I don't have to explain my true motives or make them obvious by my actions. Regardless of your speculations, I still found it immensely pointless, (for several reasons I did not mention), for you to have posted on my wall that mechanical response that's more appropriate for a bot. It was you who decided to contest my claim that you violated the three-revert rule. Your sanctimonious facade might have been more convincing if you used it as soon as I accused you of the violation. My behavior regarding these posts has been perfectly straightforward. You posted a canned response about a rule, (with the implication that I somehow might benefit from reading it); I implied that this is hypocritical because you violated a rule; we then both contested the claim that you did violate said rule. I haven't made it entirely clear why your original post to my wall was absurd, but it's perfectly reasonable for my to defend my claim that you violated a rule once you contradicted me. Assuming that you've made that concession, (or dismissed it as immaterial in contrast to your previous fervor in defending it), no posts of mine should now inconvenience your "work".-- Herb-Sewell ( talk) 10:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are trying to achieve here. You don't appear to mind my edits as much as my alleged sarcasm. Are you expecting an apology? When I said that "similar" is a common word, I was just pointing out why some of the article's information was added by me. I'm not interested in insulting anyone, and I can't recall insulting or mocking even vandalism-only accounts and sock puppets. I have no interest in offending you—that's just not my character. The content dispute is over, and I'd rather continue my work on improving Wikipedia.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your argument directly contradicts the text of
WP:EW: "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a
bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR)..." But even then, your argument becomes even more inconsequential, and it is clear that you are merely toppling a straw man. The rest of that sentence I quoted reads, "the violation of which often leads to a block." I didn't say your action would lead to a block. I merely said that you "technically broke the three-revert rule." (Note that in order to maintain that what I said was false, this is the statement that has to be disproved.) The reference of
WP:IAR compounds irrelevancy upon irrelevancy. Just because you can ignore rules under certain situations doesn't mean you are unable to simultaneously break them.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Part of the problem with your reasoning is that you assume that Wikipedia policies are written by infallible beings. They are not. They are the work of humans, which is why we also have
WP:IAR. (Did I improve Wikipedia by fixing grammar there? I believe I did.) Let's quote
WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." If anyone took that literally, this would have resulted in a block:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4]. But the user who did those edits won't get blocked because of those edits, and I'm sure you know that.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 09:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- And you "perform[ed] more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Unless you can cite another standard, you broke the three-revert rule. I'm not going to contest or allow your statistic; it's irrelevant.
WP:EW applies to every editor.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- No; reverting is the definition of edit war. Following your definition of revert—removing or rewriting anything—
WP:3RR has been broken by about 90% of Wikipedia's most active editors.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 09:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- It only applies if an edit war is occurring, which would be rare for editors who merely correct grammar. In this case, all the conditions for a three-revert violation were fulfilled by that last edit.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Following your reasoning, the folks at
WP:GOCE have violated
WP:3RR many times without getting blocked.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 08:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to make a suggestion about my behavior, don't use some cookie-cutter response that has no argumentative weight; a sanctimonious attitude won't make it for your arguments for you and it's not consistent with making sarcastic comments as edit summaries. About that "false" assertion, I was the one who made that
mistake. Unless you can find an exception to the three-revert rule that includes grammatical corrections, you broke it. Q.E.D.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 08:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I have deleted our conversation from my talk page. I was willing to keep talking to you, but not anymore, since you referred to my contributions to Wikipedia as "work" (using quotation marks). Considering I have taken a few articles to GA level and some editors have told me that they appreciate my work, I'd say your comment is not based on an examination of my 10,000+ edits (and I doubt you've looked at even 2% of them). Toccata quarta ( talk) 13:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope I can say without further offense that I find your response on my page incredibly bizarre. Of all the reasons that you could have suggested as one that would justify ending the dialogue, you chose the fact that I used your own term and put it in quotes? You said, The content dispute is over, and I'd rather continue my work on improving Wikipedia. I honestly thought that this was an unusual term to describe what most would consider to be a hobby. The fact that I put it in quotes can be interpreted in numerous ways, (see the section on quotation marks) and anyone may very easily question your sensibilities in your being perturbed by the mere placement of quotation marks. Apparently, you derived an entire statement to the effect of disparaging your sum total contributions to this website from my selective punctuation. You aren't saying why this caused such annoyance, but I imagine you made several assumptions about my intent. I must ask now who's violating WP:AGF?-- Herb-Sewell ( talk) 14:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You are engaging in an edit war with Toccata quarta ( talk · contribs) on the page Concerto for solo piano. Please try to resolve differences through discussions. Thanks, and keep up the contributions! Bubka42 ( talk) 08:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Golden Ass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman ( 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) 09:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Herb-Sewell ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 149.34.250.35. Place any further information here. Herb-Sewell ( talk) 21:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This IP address belongs to Surfshark. Please disable your VPN and wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. Yamla ( talk) 21:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I wanted to make some changes to Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots#Plot: Old Snake doesn't visit Big Boss's grave. He visits The Boss's grave. Herb-Sewell ( talk) 21:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Herb-Sewell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
Bhadani 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you've read the talk on the episode page or the guidelines of the List of Episodes project, but I feel the new format is an improvement. Known Shen Gong Wu already tracks each Shen Gong Wu, and the episode pages will all mark the exchanges when I'm done with them. Using the list of episodes as a Shen Gong Wu tracker instead of an episode guide is not helpful to people who are not fans of the show already, and I would like to remind you that this is an encyclopedia not a fan site. But please voice your opinion at Talk:List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes so we can build to more of a consensus. Jay32183 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- If we find it necessary we can remove the pictures, there is actually a template for that already built. There is a posting on the List of Episodes project so people who are unfamiliar with the show may start chiming in and helping out. Ryulong and I are doing are best at getting the episode summaries, if you want to help then do so and if not just give us some polite reminders on ones that are missing and we'll get to them as soon as we can. I do watch edits on the page so I should be able to get to them while I'm not at work. Jay32183 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Walther p38 l.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sizingupomi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:2003_10_silversteinl.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Larry Silverstein.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I have the article iPod on my watchlist, and so I check out changes to many articles. When I checked the diff for your last edit to the iPod article, I found that you changed the type of "incorrect title" template used at the top. Since it seems to me that the Template:Lowercase template is clearer and more appropriate, I'm curious as to why you changed it. I'd like to change it back, but I think it's a good idea to question why you changed it first, since you probably have a good reason for doing so. What is that reason? Thanks, Nihiltres 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- P.S.: My reference point.
As above per Nihiltres. Template: Lowercase is clearer. Why did you change it? Tom H 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Larry Silverstein.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to
the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hbdragon88 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sizingupomi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to the page
Death of Adolf Hitler has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you. —
Jeff G. (
talk|
contribs) 00:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Abacus has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
Reaper Eternal (
talk) 03:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Please consider how we can work together towards consensus at Talk:Ipse dixit#Humpty Dumpty. In this context, you may want to notice a small addition at Nominalism#History here. -- Ansei ( talk) 16:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not super attached to absolutely having the date for the Chicago Times article, even though Cornell University says it was the next day on another link. Since you didn't respect BRD and reverted my first reversion, and then I failed to call you on it and we both continued, now we're both at risk of getting blocked for 3RR violations, so I'll let it stay as is. It's okay that way anyway. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 08:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't what was the purpose of that canned, generic response, but it was an eminent waste of time on my part for me to read it and I would imagine for you to post it. Indeed, you're hardly in a position to send me Wikipedia guidelines considering that you technically broke the three-revert rule in that last edit.-- Herb-Sewell ( talk) 08:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is a pity if it fell on deaf ears, for
WP:AGF is a key Wikipedia policy. More importantly, your accusation that I "technically broke the three-revert rule" is false:
1st revert,
2nd revert,
3rd revert. My next (and so far latest) edit there was
this one, which merely fixed grammar.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 08:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to make a suggestion about my behavior, don't use some cookie-cutter response that has no argumentative weight; a sanctimonious attitude won't make it for your arguments for you and it's not consistent with making sarcastic comments as edit summaries. About that "false" assertion, I was the one who made that
mistake. Unless you can find an exception to the three-revert rule that includes grammatical corrections, you broke it. Q.E.D.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 08:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Following your reasoning, the folks at
WP:GOCE have violated
WP:3RR many times without getting blocked.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 08:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- It only applies if an edit war is occurring, which would be rare for editors who merely correct grammar. In this case, all the conditions for a three-revert violation were fulfilled by that last edit.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- No; reverting is the definition of edit war. Following your definition of revert—removing or rewriting anything—
WP:3RR has been broken by about 90% of Wikipedia's most active editors.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 09:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- And you "perform[ed] more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Unless you can cite another standard, you broke the three-revert rule. I'm not going to contest or allow your statistic; it's irrelevant.
WP:EW applies to every editor.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Part of the problem with your reasoning is that you assume that Wikipedia policies are written by infallible beings. They are not. They are the work of humans, which is why we also have
WP:IAR. (Did I improve Wikipedia by fixing grammar there? I believe I did.) Let's quote
WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." If anyone took that literally, this would have resulted in a block:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4]. But the user who did those edits won't get blocked because of those edits, and I'm sure you know that.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 09:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your argument directly contradicts the text of
WP:EW: "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a
bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR)..." But even then, your argument becomes even more inconsequential, and it is clear that you are merely toppling a straw man. The rest of that sentence I quoted reads, "the violation of which often leads to a block." I didn't say your action would lead to a block. I merely said that you "technically broke the three-revert rule." (Note that in order to maintain that what I said was false, this is the statement that has to be disproved.) The reference of
WP:IAR compounds irrelevancy upon irrelevancy. Just because you can ignore rules under certain situations doesn't mean you are unable to simultaneously break them.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are trying to achieve here. You don't appear to mind my edits as much as my alleged sarcasm. Are you expecting an apology? When I said that "similar" is a common word, I was just pointing out why some of the article's information was added by me. I'm not interested in insulting anyone, and I can't recall insulting or mocking even vandalism-only accounts and sock puppets. I have no interest in offending you—that's just not my character. The content dispute is over, and I'd rather continue my work on improving Wikipedia.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are trying to achieve here. I don't have to explain my true motives or make them obvious by my actions. Regardless of your speculations, I still found it immensely pointless, (for several reasons I did not mention), for you to have posted on my wall that mechanical response that's more appropriate for a bot. It was you who decided to contest my claim that you violated the three-revert rule. Your sanctimonious facade might have been more convincing if you used it as soon as I accused you of the violation. My behavior regarding these posts has been perfectly straightforward. You posted a canned response about a rule, (with the implication that I somehow might benefit from reading it); I implied that this is hypocritical because you violated a rule; we then both contested the claim that you did violate said rule. I haven't made it entirely clear why your original post to my wall was absurd, but it's perfectly reasonable for my to defend my claim that you violated a rule once you contradicted me. Assuming that you've made that concession, (or dismissed it as immaterial in contrast to your previous fervor in defending it), no posts of mine should now inconvenience your "work".-- Herb-Sewell ( talk) 10:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are trying to achieve here. You don't appear to mind my edits as much as my alleged sarcasm. Are you expecting an apology? When I said that "similar" is a common word, I was just pointing out why some of the article's information was added by me. I'm not interested in insulting anyone, and I can't recall insulting or mocking even vandalism-only accounts and sock puppets. I have no interest in offending you—that's just not my character. The content dispute is over, and I'd rather continue my work on improving Wikipedia.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your argument directly contradicts the text of
WP:EW: "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a
bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR)..." But even then, your argument becomes even more inconsequential, and it is clear that you are merely toppling a straw man. The rest of that sentence I quoted reads, "the violation of which often leads to a block." I didn't say your action would lead to a block. I merely said that you "technically broke the three-revert rule." (Note that in order to maintain that what I said was false, this is the statement that has to be disproved.) The reference of
WP:IAR compounds irrelevancy upon irrelevancy. Just because you can ignore rules under certain situations doesn't mean you are unable to simultaneously break them.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Part of the problem with your reasoning is that you assume that Wikipedia policies are written by infallible beings. They are not. They are the work of humans, which is why we also have
WP:IAR. (Did I improve Wikipedia by fixing grammar there? I believe I did.) Let's quote
WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." If anyone took that literally, this would have resulted in a block:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4]. But the user who did those edits won't get blocked because of those edits, and I'm sure you know that.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 09:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- And you "perform[ed] more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Unless you can cite another standard, you broke the three-revert rule. I'm not going to contest or allow your statistic; it's irrelevant.
WP:EW applies to every editor.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- No; reverting is the definition of edit war. Following your definition of revert—removing or rewriting anything—
WP:3RR has been broken by about 90% of Wikipedia's most active editors.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 09:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- It only applies if an edit war is occurring, which would be rare for editors who merely correct grammar. In this case, all the conditions for a three-revert violation were fulfilled by that last edit.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 09:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Following your reasoning, the folks at
WP:GOCE have violated
WP:3RR many times without getting blocked.
Toccata quarta (
talk) 08:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to make a suggestion about my behavior, don't use some cookie-cutter response that has no argumentative weight; a sanctimonious attitude won't make it for your arguments for you and it's not consistent with making sarcastic comments as edit summaries. About that "false" assertion, I was the one who made that
mistake. Unless you can find an exception to the three-revert rule that includes grammatical corrections, you broke it. Q.E.D.--
Herb-Sewell (
talk) 08:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I have deleted our conversation from my talk page. I was willing to keep talking to you, but not anymore, since you referred to my contributions to Wikipedia as "work" (using quotation marks). Considering I have taken a few articles to GA level and some editors have told me that they appreciate my work, I'd say your comment is not based on an examination of my 10,000+ edits (and I doubt you've looked at even 2% of them). Toccata quarta ( talk) 13:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope I can say without further offense that I find your response on my page incredibly bizarre. Of all the reasons that you could have suggested as one that would justify ending the dialogue, you chose the fact that I used your own term and put it in quotes? You said, The content dispute is over, and I'd rather continue my work on improving Wikipedia. I honestly thought that this was an unusual term to describe what most would consider to be a hobby. The fact that I put it in quotes can be interpreted in numerous ways, (see the section on quotation marks) and anyone may very easily question your sensibilities in your being perturbed by the mere placement of quotation marks. Apparently, you derived an entire statement to the effect of disparaging your sum total contributions to this website from my selective punctuation. You aren't saying why this caused such annoyance, but I imagine you made several assumptions about my intent. I must ask now who's violating WP:AGF?-- Herb-Sewell ( talk) 14:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You are engaging in an edit war with Toccata quarta ( talk · contribs) on the page Concerto for solo piano. Please try to resolve differences through discussions. Thanks, and keep up the contributions! Bubka42 ( talk) 08:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Golden Ass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman ( 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) 09:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Herb-Sewell ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 149.34.250.35. Place any further information here. Herb-Sewell ( talk) 21:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This IP address belongs to Surfshark. Please disable your VPN and wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. Yamla ( talk) 21:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I wanted to make some changes to Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots#Plot: Old Snake doesn't visit Big Boss's grave. He visits The Boss's grave. Herb-Sewell ( talk) 21:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)