User talk:Catrionamcdavid

June 2013
Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Anna Del Conte because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Catriona. Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope that you become a thoroughly vigorous editor. I imagine that Widr’s concern was to do with your removing quite a bit from the article on Anna del Conte without explaining why. Generally speaking it is enough to to provide an edit summary—if, for instance, you are removing obvious vandalism (of which there is a great deal on Wikipedia), just add the summary ‘reverting vandalism’. If your edit is likely to be much more controversial than that, then it’s a good idea to make your case on the article’s talk page: either before you make your edit (if you are feeling uncertain) or afterwards (If you are feeling bolder).


 * There is, however, a potential issue [up-to-date-speak for ’problem’] with your edits so far. Those are to Diane Setterfield ‎ and to Anna Del Conte, and according to Google (which may well be lying as it often does), you have a namesake who works for their literary agent. If you are that namesake you really should read the Wikipedia guidelines on editors’ conflicts of interest. In which case, in short, do certainly continue to contribute to the encyclopaedia—I’m sure you are the kind of person we need—but please avoid editing articles in which that conflict of interest might arise. Or if you really want to make a change to such an article, then suggest the change on the talk page and allow an uninvolved editor to make it.


 * Best wishes—and I certainly look forward to your contributions to Wikipedia,
 * Ian Spackman (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with Ian Spackman) Hi, Catriona. I see you have removed material from Anna Del Conte. Maybe you had good reasons, but if you remove text with no explanation, your edits are likely to be reverted as "unexplained". Please use edit summaries to explain edits. Our policy on biographies of living persons is informative, it may interest you to read it; it's something you can refer to in explaining changes you make to biography articles. I have just now removed a sentence in the article that you removed before, because I thought it was a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. (Here you can see the edit I made and my edit summary, as an example.) Please feel free to ask me, right here or on my talkpage, if there's anything you'd like clarified. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC).