User talk:NathaninSeattle

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Paula Begoun, 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, 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I appreciate your response, and I understand your process. However, Paula Begoun is also the CEO of Beginning Press Publishing, which has published her 18 books. I will cite this in my revision (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/paula-begoun/17/891/34) Thank you. NathaninSeattle (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Nathan[reply]

Thanks. That may make her a self-publisher. A publisher is normally understood to be someone who runs a publishing house that would publish a range of authors. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paula Begoun. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. and you are adding overtly promotional material Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The page material has been revised by Wikipedia Editors again and again, and I have kept these revisions, and added citations to everything that is fact (not sure how fact is considered promotional.) This has been reviewed and approved by another Wikipedia Editor. You have completely confused me with contrasting advice. Please be specific with exactly what is considered promotional material. I have compared this page to this one (that is approved by your editorial Wiki-peeps) and it has way more promotional material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suze_Orman. Please tell me exactly what is wrong, and I will correct it. Thank you. NathaninSeattle (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Nathan[reply]

I removed peacock terms "worldwide" and "bestselling" unneeded words "Today" and removed the excess promotional description of her blog.I'm not sure what you mean by "editorial Wiki-peeps"?Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Ah, I meant Wiki volunteer editors (by 'wiki peeps) sorry, bad vernacular. Thank you for the specifics, I agree totally.  Thank you for your help!NathaninSeattle (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Nathan[reply]