User talk:HerbSewell
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, HerbSewell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gravity (film). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm CapnZapp. Just wanted to tell you that it took quite some time, but your unconstructive jokey reference to space helmets was finally caught and removed. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- How was it unconstructive?--HerbSewell (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- What's more insulting than the fact that you didn't explain why my edit was unconstructive, but you automatically concluded it must have been a joke. The cutline outright said, "...if Sandra Bullock were a real astronaut she wouldn't have a clear visor." That was the basis of my edit. You then contradicted the qualifications of a clearly fictitious straw man even though nothing indicated that it was there that I got the reference. Why would you assume that was what I was referring to? Wouldn't it have been obvious that I was referring to the cutline of the article? You can dispute the reliability of it, but it's utterly baseless, presumptuous, and wholly unfair for you to assume that I only could have inserted that information purposefully unconstructively or as a "jokey" reference.--HerbSewell (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reference is jokey, not you. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- And if you would have read the entire source, you would have seen that it pointed out independently of the "jokey" portion what I was claiming, (aside from the HUD).--HerbSewell (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I wasn't assuming good faith, but this was right under comment saying that my edits appeared to be vandalism, which I assumed you agreed with, but hardly followed from my actions.--HerbSewell (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- And if you would have read the entire source, you would have seen that it pointed out independently of the "jokey" portion what I was claiming, (aside from the HUD).--HerbSewell (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reference is jokey, not you. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- What's more insulting than the fact that you didn't explain why my edit was unconstructive, but you automatically concluded it must have been a joke. The cutline outright said, "...if Sandra Bullock were a real astronaut she wouldn't have a clear visor." That was the basis of my edit. You then contradicted the qualifications of a clearly fictitious straw man even though nothing indicated that it was there that I got the reference. Why would you assume that was what I was referring to? Wouldn't it have been obvious that I was referring to the cutline of the article? You can dispute the reliability of it, but it's utterly baseless, presumptuous, and wholly unfair for you to assume that I only could have inserted that information purposefully unconstructively or as a "jokey" reference.--HerbSewell (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- How was it unconstructive?--HerbSewell (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
3RR at Jim Inhofe article
[edit]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. This applies to your edits at Jim Inhofe. You also made what you called a "joke" edit, WP:POINTy edits are disruptive so please desist. . . dave souza, talk 08:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)