User talk:Chewstokyo

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Chewstokyo. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Jill Kelley, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia'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.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. v/r - T P 22:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chewstokyo (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Hello, I am Chewstokyo and being discriminated against for being unexperienced. Clearly I find this unfair since I am only editing and adding up to date information, but false being associated with the subject and/or being accused of being in the PR/marketing world. It seems as if anyone edits or reverts to the original page from Novemebr (which read very constantly and grammatically correct) they are being called PR agents (in fact, I even saw one "experienced editor" accusing one of the rookie editors that it was from Miami, and therefore" it must Jill Kelley since she is from Miami" which is baseless and incorect) Please appeal to my request that my new edits does not make it not factual or male me unqualified or a reason to be blocked thank you for your consideration. Chewstokyo (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked because you were found to be using multiple accounts against Wikipedia policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jill Kelley. 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 be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Michèle Flournoy. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]