If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Daniel DeBourg, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

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

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Daniel DeBourg has been reverted.
Your edit here to Daniel DeBourg was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/danieldb13) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced / WP:COI changes

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Daniel DeBourg. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Daniel DeBourg. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dl2000 (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns

Sorry to see that you are unhappy with the article Daniel DeBourg, Wikipedia takes great care to ensure that Biographies of living people are both neutral and well sourced. It appears that your edits contradict sources that are considered to be reliable which is why they have been reverted. If you are unhappy about this then you can speak to somebody about it using the e-mail addresses given here. At that link there are several ways to fix this problem given. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Daniel DeBourg, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Daniel DeBourg has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you. Cst17 (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING

Your recent editing history at Daniel DeBourg shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Dl2000 (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are not tolerated here

On December 24, 2011, you posted this legal threat: I will take legal action if this article is not removed. Our normal procedure calls for an immediate block of your account, but I'm giving you a chance to explicitly withdraw that threat first. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

apologies orange mike, but i have no idea about how to use wiki or how it's run. the offensive material has been removed for the page now so i'm very happy. have a wonderful and prosperous 2012!