User talk:Archanas.getfriday

Hello, I'm NawlinWiki. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Katherine Kingsley without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Katherine Kingsley with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TYelliot &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  15:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Katherine Kingsley with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. TYelliot &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Katherine Kingsley
You wrote in an edit summary: "This is katherine's publisher and I am editing this as per Katherine's idea." Although we do not make it as clear as we should to new users, Wikipedia is not a place for people or their representatives to tell the world about themselves. As her publisher you have, in respect of her, a Conflict of interest and should not be editing her article. Please read the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

I have reverted your edits, which had two problems:
 * They removed all the references. A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is Verifiability: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". For articles about living persons this is so important that if tagged for lack of references they are automatically deleted after ten days, and I did in fact delete this article before seeing that there was a referenced version in the history which could be restored.
 * Your version had an unencyclopedic and promotional tone, with "peacock words" like "iconic" and personal opinions like "2013 is proving to be a promising year for Katherine". That sort of thing is one reason why editing with a WP:Conflict of interest is strongly discouraged.

If there are factual inaccuracies in the article, please point them out on the article talk page, or suggest any factual additions, giving references to reliable published sources to confirm what you say.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)