User talk:HardMental

Even if you have the rights to do so please do not mess with my editing assume I know what I am doing, I will try and fix anything I have previously altered that appears wrong just point it out if you see anything out of place and add the subject to the discussion of the related page. Thanks in advance.

February 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Seyit Çabuk. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, HardMental. You have new messages at Mz7's talk page.
Message added 03:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mz7 (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:HardMental reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: ). Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines you need to pay attention to

The following are social contracts that members of the site have (directly or indirectly) agreed to prevent larger problems:

Noone owns any article here, or even their edits to articles. At the top of the edit page, it says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone," which means that if you don't want someone to change or even remove what you add, then you need to use another site.
Assume other editors are here to help as much as is possible.
Users should never make personal attacks on others. It's a good idea to avoid commenting on people, but on content, and then if necessary, actions.
Don't edit war. Except in cases of clear-cut vandalism, do not revert changes to a page more than 3 times within a 24 hour period.

Note: The above points are why I'm almost ready to block you. I will be monitoring further actions by you and will second a block carried out by other admins even if I have not yet pulled the trigger myself.

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.

Ian.thomson (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HardMental. You have new messages at Ian.thomson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-

Seyit as a nominee & A background story of the shot listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Seyit as a nominee & A background story of the shot. Since you had some involvement with the Seyit as a nominee & A background story of the shot redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]