" 

 == Please don't edit articles that pertain to yourself! == 

 I don't know how to put this without making you feel got at, so I shall just plunge in and hope for the best. 

 I've just read this page plus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Kaye Tardif, , ,  and . This seems like a textbook example of why Wikipedia editors should not edit articles which pertain to themselves. Ecophreek gave some useful links above: let me pick out a few highlights. 
 *You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. WP:AUTO 

 *[Autobiographies] are often biased, usually positively. People have a tendency towards self-aggrandizement when talking about themselves, and for presenting opinions as facts. WP:AUTO#The problem with autobiographies 

 *Note that anything you submit can be edited by others. Several autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in at least four instances have been listed for deletion by their original authors. In some cases the article is kept even if the original author requests otherwise. People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic. WP:AUTO#Creating an article about yourself 

 *Wikipedia is not, therefore, a forum for advertising or a vanity press.  WP:VAIN#Vain vs. encyclopedic 

 ===The ""official"" article=== 
 Actually, there isn't one. It's one of the strange features of WP that articles remain live and continue to be changed, for good or for ill. I could list both good and bad results of this, but since it's the Way Things Are (at least presently), anyone contributing to WP has to get used to the idea that there isn't a ""definitive"" version which they can maintain. The AfD process decided to keep the title ""Cheryl Kaye Tardif"" if a decent article could be made of it: this doesn't constitute a particular version being the ""approved"" one. 

 ===Ownership=== 
 Some of what you wrote above certainly gave the impression that you felt ownership for articles pertaining to you. (""I have now edited my Cheryl Kaye Tardif page and my Whale Song page,"" ""I think I'll keep the pages basic"", "" I'll accept your help, but you are going to have to compromise as well."")  

 You don't get to say yea or nay to any editor working on any page. You can put your case and try to convince others what should be in an article, but its not yours and you have no special say over it. Actually, in this case you're lucky to have found an editor such as Ecophreek, who is willing to incorporate information which you post here on your talk page, or on the talk page of Cheryl Kaye Tardif. I think these can be fruitful relationships, as the subject of an article will probably keep closer watch on their clippings than the other editor. 

 So I was glad to read that you are not claiming any ownership of these articles. It would be great if you could rephrase the statement on your user page to better reflect this (as it stands it's open to misinterpretation). 

 ===Bruised egos=== 
 One problem of editing articles about oneself is that it is easy to take changes to an article personally, which can lead to undue conflict with other editors. You have been sarcastic and mildly aggressive to , including accusing her of lack of objectivity (""you have not been perhaps as objective towards me or my articles as you should be"" ), when as far as I can see she has been nothing but neutral and helpful.  

 You have also got into actual conflict with . Lgh's comments were certainly uncivil when talking about you as an editor (bad boy!). But you say ""That was not the place to air your opinionated viewpoint of me as a writer, or to predict my ""destined"" failure."" . Although in this instance the criticism did not contribute towards the article, in general it's precisely appropriate to discuss publically on WP issues which affect notability, and to include literary criticism of a work (which may not be constructive criticism!) or properly referenced criticism of a person (ditto!). This may mean you read things that you don't like, and WP:CIVIL does not cover the content of articles. 

 On a related tack, from WP:CIVIL (a page to which you have refered): shortly above the