User talk:Backwaters

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Backwaters. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

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. Thank you. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a report to BLPN. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All information used is verified and accurate, as per authentic Chris Pitman website, at http://www.chrispitman.com/blog/?p=205,

Backwaters was only correcting a long unverified and unreliable source used: http://www.mygnr.com/members/chris.html
  This is not edit warring,  but edit correcting with proper and verified information.
  Wikipedia:Reasons for deletion states:
 6.Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 3.Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
  14.Any other content not suitable for an encyclopediaBackwaters (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2016 (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. Thank you., located at WP:AN3#Chris Pitman. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Chris Pitman 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 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.
You can discuss this by leaving a message on the article's talk page: Talk:Chris Pitman. --Der yck C. 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not yours

No page on Wikipedia is "yours". See WP:OWN and particularly WP:COI.--2.110.77.99 (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]