User talk:NotSeenHere

Welcome

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

Welcome!

Hello, NotSeenHere, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

NotSeenHere, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi NotSeenHere! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello. An edit that you recently made to Friedrich Hayek seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! – S. Rich (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Maxime Bernier page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017 page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful

NSH, I am glad that you are keen to edit in Wikipedia, but I urge you to be more careful - take your time and make sure that you edits are correct before you press "save changes". Use the "Show preview" button to check your spelling and capitalization. Also, be sure to provide references to reliable sources per the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability . I have reverted several of your edits that were not ready for Wikipedia. Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

In the last few days you've done over 30 edits to the Maxime Bernier article and many many more if we look back further. There are still grammar errors, but checking and fixing every trivial edit would be tedious. So I'll only add my support to what Ground Zero said: please be careful. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring requests to discuss your edits

@NotSeenHere: Please tell me that at least you are receiving "ping" messages and posts on your talk page -- I have yet to see you respond to anything. In the latest series of changes, on Maxime_Bernier, you added statements about Bernier's father which I believed were poorly sourced, so I removed them. You reverted me. I went to the talk page, I explained the problem, I asked you to discuss. You ignored me, and continued to edit Maxime Bernier. I went to the talk page, said that I was removing again, and asked for anyone's input, and removed again. You reverted me, and continued to edit Maxime Bernier as if nothing is going on. I remind you that both I and Ground Zero have seen problems with your edits, and that this is a page which is subject to WP:BLP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC) It is referenced in the french article that I recited.

March 2017

Hello, I'm Simplexity22. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Kevin O'Leary seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Simplexity22 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Kevin O'Leary. Thank you. Simplexity22 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Maxime Bernier

You are trying to remove sourced information from the Maxime Bernier page without explanation. Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. Bell1985 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Your recent editing history at Maxime Bernier 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 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 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. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)