User talk:Roger Ellory

Welcome!

Hello, Roger Ellory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Esowteric+Talk 19:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Ellory

By the way, if (and only if) you're related in some way to the author R. J. Ellory and you make unsourced or controversial edits to the subject's biography at Wikipedia, it may be worth your while familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policy on possible conflict of interest and about biographies of living persons in general. If you have a content dispute, please add a description to your edits and use the talk page. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 19:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at R. J. Ellory. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. If there is a content dispute, please describe your edits and use the talk page. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 08:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have grievances, you can also take them to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Esowteric+Talk 09:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts

Roger Ellory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
77.100.46.44 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
94.11.171.216 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of living persons noticeboard: R. J. Ellory

I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#R. J. Ellory. Please add your input to that discussion. Esowteric+Talk 08:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are interested in hearing your side

Hello Mr. Ellory. I'm hoping that you will go to the biographies noticeboard, at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#R. J. Ellory, to give us your side of the story. What precisely do you feel is inaccurate in our article about you? I would hate for the discussion to close without your input. I look forward to hearing your side of the matter, so that the proper course, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, can be taken. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've received your second message on my talk page and replied there. Thanks a lot, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 10:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to talk page message

I'm not sure if you're even getting to read these messages, so I'll repeat here the reply I made on my talk page:

"Hi Roger, you're talking to Eric. I'm not an admin here; just another hack/editor. I am definitely not in control of this! As you have genuine grievances, I created a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#R. J. Ellory on your behalf, so that you can air your views and set the record straight. Click the link and scroll to the section beginning with the title "R. J. Ellory"; and read what has been said. By the section title is a link to edit the section. Here you can provide your input, just as you do when editing the section of an article. I'll add your mesage left on my talk page to that thread.

"If you go to the article R. J. Ellory and click on the "view history" link at the top of the page, here you can see who made what changes, why and when. Recent changes were made not by me but by Qworty (talk · contribs). Hope that helps. Regards, Eric:" Esowteric+Talk 10:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was added by Jean-Jacques Georges (talk · contribs). Esowteric+Talk 10:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further work on R. J. Ellory

Unfortunately, Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) has removed a lot of the material from Personal life, as it not reliably sourced. That's one of the rules of biography of living persons.

The discussion at the noticeboard continues and I've added your apology to the Controversy section, and also changed the banner from facts disputed -> unbalanced. I think it carries undue weight and is biased toward certain viewpoints.

I've also been through your works and awards and added a number of citations (references), which helps the article. However, I can find few references to your Personal life to add more detail. My advice would be: feed reviewers and interviewers with material that you would like to see in your Wikipedia biography and try to go for "reliable sources" rather than blogs. Editors can then quote from and cite these sources. This is the glue that makes things stick at Wikipedia. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 16:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the message left on my talk page: As I've already said, to see who has made changes, why and when, go to the page and click on "View History" at the top of the page. Hereyou will see all the details listed. Esowteric+Talk 16:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at R. J. Ellory, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain to me why certain sections of my biog are permitted to remain and others are not. This biog has been up for many months, and all of a sudden you have decided that some of it is invalid. This is my page, my life, my biog, and you are telling me that it is not valid? I do not understand what you are doing, nor why?

Please, please, please click on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎#R. J. Ellory and make yourself heard there. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 18:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you don't understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. The content you keep adding is trivial and unverified--what books you read when is irrelevant unless it can be proven to be important. That falls foul of WP:V, for starters. Second, you keep adding it, despite the objections of other editors--that's edit-warring (see WP:EW). Third, it is obvious that there is a conflict of interest here (WP:COI), and that the addition of unverified and promotional (since non-neutral) information is a violation of WP:BLP, the guidelines for biographies of living people, is obvious as well.
I could go on, and I should, but I'll be brief. In addition to adding such unverified content, you have removed verified content, in violation of the same policies and guidelines already cited. In addition, by browsing through the history I have just discovered that you have made those edits not just with your registered account but also with a number of IP addresses--that means that the edit-warring has been waged partly in a way that avoids scrutiny (contributions by 94.11.171.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 94.11.177.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 77.100.46.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). With all of these IPs edits were made (the addition of biography and the removal of controversy) that are directly at stake in this current back and forth, and I note that two of those IPs were already mentioned on your talk page, which is full of notes and notifications and invitations to the conversation.
When I put all this together--the whitewashing in this article, the addition of non-neutral and unverified material, the edit-warring and the use of IP addresses to continue an edit war and perhaps avoid a block, I have no option but to conclude that you are not capable of editing this article about yourself in a way that accords with Wikipedia's guidelines, and I will block this account indefinitely. Please see the template I am going to paste below for what this means and what recourse you might have. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what all these acronyms mean, and I do not understand the protocol at all. I am sorry to have upset you with my attempts to restore the biog sections that I repasted. That biog has been there for many, many months, and the thing that doesn't make sense is why - if it violates all the things that you say it violates - has it only now been called into question and removed? And I also don't understand why the preceding paragraphs are considered verifiable when I wrote those as well. Anyway, you seem to be able to control and dictate what does and does not go on my wikipedia page, regardless of whether or not it is true, verified or nverified, and you also seem to have the power to prevent me from doing anything about it. This seems a little one-sided and unfair, but then that seems to be the way with most facets of journalism and reportage these days. My intent was never to antagonise you or challenge your system. My intent was merely to see that the information on my page - which is, after all, a representation of me and my life to the wider world - was not biased, inappropriate, incorrect and false.

I have just noted the comments from Chris below. I am staying out of this now! Sorry for the inconvenience.

"That biog has been there for many, many months," Wikipedia has no standard oversight or verification of material as it is added. Improper content may sit in an article for months (or unfortunately even years) before someone realizes it is there and gets rid of it. The length of time material has been in an article bares no weight in whether or not it meets the criteria for belonging in an article. (and I believe all the acronyms are linked, so you can click on them to find out what they mean) -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think that editors took out the more obviously self-penned or "puffed up" parts of Personal life and left some, perhaps because if they'd taken out any more, there would be no personal life left and then the controversy section would be even more overly weighted and biased. As I said, the glue that makes things stick are reliable, independent sources. So point reviewers and interviewers to your on-line biography and feed them with details that you'd like to see in your biography at Wikipedia. Then this "reliably sourced" material can be quoted and cited. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 19:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I thought that might be the case. So, if I wanted to make a request for material to be added, then how would that be done standardly, and without violating the wikipedia protocol? (I do appreciate that my request might not be accepted, but I just wondered how one would go about it.)

If you know of any reliable sources, then you could always copy and paste links here, to your talk page, maybe? I'm not sure if your block would still allow you to add to the article's talk page? Esowteric+Talk 19:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and Wikipedia:Autobiography, particularly this seciont Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems_in_an_article_about_you will also have helpful information. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. R J Ellory

And since you are currently blocked and unable to take some of the actions listed, you can also use the {:{help me}:} (remove the colons) as described in the Welcome! section above. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the acronyms are all clickable, and they point to policies and guidelines that are fundamental to the project. If you can indicate that you have perused them and can abide by them, an admin might well look favorably on an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I had absolutely no idea how wikipedia worked. I wrote a biog and posted it. I have been posting the titles of my books and including the ISBN number for years. I thought that no-one actually added anything but me! To then have sections added and removed, unbeknownst to me, was a complete surprise, and I was just puzzled. I have no intention to continually post anything on this page, except perhaps new book titles and awards as they occur. Being blocked, I cannot now do this, so I will have to ask someone else to do it. Who do I go to for that? Is there a central wikipedia help unit or something where you can ask for things to be posted once they have been verified? (RJE)

You can type "helpme" on this talk page as indicated above, that's probably the easiest way if you don't wish to be unblocked. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Blocked indefinitely" doesn't mean blocked permanently. If you study the Wikipedia policies and guidelines (see the clickable Welcome section at the top of the page) and indicate that you understand the policies and guidelines and will abide by them, it is possible that an admin will unblock you. Esowteric+Talk 20:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also have a quick look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, maybe?

Will do. Your assistance is much appreciated. (RJE)

Hello

Hello.

You had some issues at Amazon recently, and (as a fan of your books) I don't want the same thing to happen here. The way the internet works though, if there's any suspicion that you're interfering with your own wikipedia article to make it look more favourable then it might blow up in your face again. And, the way the web works, that suspicion does not have to be true.

Could I suggest you go to this webpage:

http://quominus.org/archives/979

and have a read. Towards the end it gives a good explanation of why wikipedia does not simply take at face value what people say. I have no doubt that what you write is true, but it needs to be traced to a reputable source before it can be added to the article about you. And, sadly, people are not reputable when it comes to information about themselves. People lie, all the time; I'm not saying that you are, but that's the reason that you can't just go inserting stuff into the article about yourself. Indeed, according to wikipedia rules you shouldn't really be editing the article about yourself, because you're (naturally!) biased, and, like Grant Shapps did, people go around removing from their article things that are negative but true.

Please leave all your replies at this page, to keep them in one place. If you have issues with your article, ask (nicely) somebody there to do something about it. Don't do it yourself. Chris (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood Chris, and many thanks for letting me know. I am staying out of it now!

R. J. Ellory Controversy section still undue and unbalanced?

Roger, if you are concerned that the controversy section is unbalanced (neglecting certain points of view), then the only thing that I can suggest is that you engage further with the press and state the facts as you see them, to partially set the record straight. Then this can be quoted as being "reliably sourced" and added to the article. However, this will of course make the controversy section even larger and perhaps more unduly weighted? Caveat: Be careful, however. This may have unintended consequences which could exacerbate an already difficult situation. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 10:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard thread now archived

The BLP noticeboard thread has now been archived. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive162. Esowteric+Talk 10:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock guidance

If you are interested in betting unblocked, read WP:GAB or you can email me or any other admin, who will be happy to help you understand the process. It is a fairly straight forward process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Roger Ellory (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I read and understood wikipedia policies regarding BLP, using reliable sources, COI and original research. I will not edit my biog again. In regards to the accusation in trying to avoid scrutiny, all I can say is that I honestly forgot that you even had to log in! I have so many on-line accounts with my bank, with credit cards, with facebook, twitter, e-mail, myspace, my blog, my website etc., and I sometimes just lose track of what I am logged into and what I am not! The mere fact that you can access a wikipedia page and add things without logging in just sort of makes you think that that's the way it is done. I just forgot about it, and that was all. Please AGF and lift the block. Thanks. --Roger Ellory (talk) 11:47 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Accept reason:

Unblocked, on the above proviso that you leave your own bio alone - you can make suggestions and leave comments on the talkpage if you wish, but should avoid editing the article itself. Welcome back. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]