Additional Point
If all links to officical wesites are a no-no and need to be weeded out because of the commercial and advertisement nature of these links, then wikipedia and its editors need to be fair handed across the board and review many other sites that have and continue to do the same ie Shaquille O'Neals site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_and_Teller, as well as others. If the organization is to be fair and balanced these sites too would be up for review. Sincerely R.Ambrose
Roger Ambrose
To whom it may concern:
- From the beginning of this discourse I have attached my name and identified myself as Roger Ambrose or R.Ambrose. I have not hidden behind any web name here or even tried to remain anonymous. I mistakenly created (authored) an article on wikipedia and so stated in my discussions early on, but unfortunately these were deleted by your administrator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AmiDaniel last night. I am being portrayed here as someone trying to get away with something illegal and unethical. This is unfair. I was only trying to make things right. I presented a revised version of this article yesterday and was not slammed as I am here by your esteemed editor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JChap2007 for changes I was submitting for your review today. I have asked questions concerning my editing of this article, but to my understanding have not receive that definitive “NO” as JChap has implied. No one has addressed the issue of “third parties” being a thinly veiled cover for the many “autobiographies” currently on wikipedia, nor has anyone addressed my question as to why the numerous and notable “porn stars,” who have articles that they have obviously written themselves, get a pass from your detailed discourse. I fully understand that I will be totally banned from your wikipedia site for expressing myself at this tone and with this frankness, but I have had it. Delete the article with extreme prejudice and ban me to the far reaches of the intent galaxies. This has been an extremely educational and somewhat bruising experience. Signed for all to see, Roger C. Ambrose
Roger ambrose 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- While I don't like the fact that he's been adding his own page, it seems that if another user added this page it would likely survive a deletion discussion. His IMDB biography is quite extensive, I see no reason to vote to delete simply because he created his own entry. Surely we would prefer if someone else created it, but I think if we include small time actors who have had bit parts or background roles their entire lives, this person surely is as notable if not more than them. I vote to Keep but lets try to ensure that the user who created the page understands that he shouldn't create his own page.
Batman2005
20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
IMDB is not a good source for notability as its just a listing, if you can find criteria in WP:BIO for keeping, I'll support.-- JChap 20:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC) See above. -- JChap 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- While I don't like the fact that he's been adding his own page, it seems that if another user added this page it would likely survive a deletion discussion. His IMDB biography is quite extensive, I see no reason to vote to delete simply because he created his own entry. Surely we would prefer if someone else created it, but I think if we include small time actors who have had bit parts or background roles their entire lives, this person surely is as notable if not more than them. I vote to Keep but lets try to ensure that the user who created the page understands that he shouldn't create his own page.
Batman2005
20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say that these two criteria fit as well as possible for someone in this field Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work andPainters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field . Certainly he's not a published author or editor or photographer, but each of those refer to the arts and while set design is its own small corner of the market, his work has been "published" (put on television and movies) in MANY different places. Additionally, photo's of him with his emmy's indicate that he's achieved noteriety and praise for his works which will likely become a matter or enduring historical record in his particular field of work.
Batman2005
21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very creative arguments. You've almost convinced me its a border-line case (which I'm usually sympathetic to). However, the well has been poisoned.
I've got to agree with Sandstein--Put this on a user page. We can turn the article into a stub and let someone else expand it. If he's really notable enough for inclusion, someone will.-- JChap 22:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very creative arguments. You've almost convinced me its a border-line case (which I'm usually sympathetic to). However, the well has been poisoned.
- I'd say that these two criteria fit as well as possible for someone in this field Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work andPainters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field . Certainly he's not a published author or editor or photographer, but each of those refer to the arts and while set design is its own small corner of the market, his work has been "published" (put on television and movies) in MANY different places. Additionally, photo's of him with his emmy's indicate that he's achieved noteriety and praise for his works which will likely become a matter or enduring historical record in his particular field of work.
Batman2005
21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, certainly he's done quite a lot in the field of Art Design, i'd like to see somebody else create the article though. Batman2005 00:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Batman, I understand this line at this point, but "the horse has left the barn" as it were. Is there anyway for me to get a "third party" to revise this article to one that conforms with yours and the others concerns and guidelines? R.Ambrose
**Why are the words "third party" in quotation marks in your statement? -- JChap 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ambrose, i'd be happy to look through the article and make some changes if any need to be done. I'd also be happy if the article were to be deleted, to create one using the information here that you've supplied. I think we're mostly in agreement that this is a worthwhile endeavour, and it's not an actual policy that autobiographical articles are deleted, it's just discouraged...lets let the afd run its course, as its possible that a consensus to keep will emerge. Batman2005 01:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Batman, thank you for offer to act as the third party. I have submitted a revised article herein for all to review. I will let the afd run its course, as you have suggest and hope for that consensus to agree on letting the article revised or otherwise remain. Thank you for yours and everyone's time and consideration on this issue. It has been truly a learning experience for me.
A point of observation
I understand where all the thought and discussion has come from and is headed. If I was more Wiki-WISE at the creation of the entire article, when I first logged in and registered under a different name other than Roger Ambrose, would I have been recognized as a “third party” not partial and more neutral? If so, then the question is how many other articles have been written by the Wiki-WISE or a “third-person” PR firm. The fact that I was honest and naïve at the onset now renders me a villain and poisons the well. Yes, this article was written by Roger Ambrose, yes is could be re-written to an even more neutral position, but are my actions totally out of line to eliminate this article completely?
A compromise idea would be to let me rewrite this article in a more neutral position and wording and to follow the requests to weed out any hint of advertisement that is the article, after which it is out there for the world to edit and change at will. What if inaccurate information was to be placed in the article after that point? Am I forbidden from making any editorial corrections?
Whether I am notable or not is up for interpretation, I only would like to know who has the final say or judgment here? If my actions have offended any editor or administrator, I apologize; they were not intended as such. I again leave this for your group discussion and will wait for the “final decision”. Sincerely R.Ambrose
Deletion is not understood.
I don't understand the complete deletion of this page. I am not trying to be a pest by re-submitting the article (it was all I knew how to do) I was not trying to be sneaky at all, I thought it was just an automated bot's deletion.
I have communicated with all the other editors comments and guidelines to the best of my ability. I could use some help here. As I was seeing from all the other comments by editors, I was following or changing any suggestions being made.
Now, as a more familar user of wikipedia, I understand that in fact I should not have created this article myself. I tried to keep it as nutural as possible, but to give as much info on the subject as possible. I appreciate the notation to the IMDb listing on my work as a reason for my remaining on wikipedia.
Again if I am totally out of line, so be it. I will live with your rulings here, but would like a civil explaination. Thank you. R.Ambrose
- So we have a clash between policies. The fact that he was fast in recreating a deleted page (itself grounds for a speedy deletion) bothers me. The fact that this is vanity, itself grounds for deletion, bothers me. But Roger C. Ambrose is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (it should be disambiguated from two actors named Roger Ambrose). So how do we split this baby? Move this to
Roger C. Ambrose (now a redirect page), make
Roger Ambrose a disambiguation page, and state in no uncertain terms that such autobiographies are not permitted on Wikipedia. The advertising must be eliminated, too - and the awards section and everything with his web site address must go.
B.Wind
21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The tone of this article also clearly demonstrates why, while not forbidden, autobiography is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. An article written by a third party would not read like this. Fan1967 21:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- So we have a clash between policies. The fact that he was fast in recreating a deleted page (itself grounds for a speedy deletion) bothers me. The fact that this is vanity, itself grounds for deletion, bothers me. But Roger C. Ambrose is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (it should be disambiguated from two actors named Roger Ambrose). So how do we split this baby? Move this to
Roger C. Ambrose (now a redirect page), make
Roger Ambrose a disambiguation page, and state in no uncertain terms that such autobiographies are not permitted on Wikipedia. The advertising must be eliminated, too - and the awards section and everything with his web site address must go.
B.Wind
21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Additional Point
If all links to offical websites are a no-no and need to be weeded out because of the commercial and advertisement nature of these links, then wikipedia and its editors need to be fair handed across the board and review many other sites that have and continue to do the same ie Shaquille O'Neals site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_and_Teller, as well as others. If the organization is to be fair and balanced these sites too would be up for review. Sincerely R.Ambrose
- My objection is not having a link to the official website (that is fine); but each picture in the article having the website address is crossing the line into advertising, which is a Wikipedia no-no. We must always toe the line between stating the facts and advertising, and must always favor the former. B.Wind 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Got it. I understand that line now and can if allowed get a "third party" to change this article to better conform to these points. Just let me know if I should spend the time getting it reworked. -R.Ambrose
- With all due respect, I am a little confused, if many of the editors here are “All about keeping Wiki a stand-up operation” and following the rules, then why are the sites below still on wikipedia. My credit list and experience to many would be considered more “stand up” than many of these "actors" and "actresses", and definitely more notable. Thank you all for your points and advise. I am a little burnt out on all the discussion over this article. All I want to do is make this right. I just happened to come upon all the actions and discussion because it was my day off and I was checking in. I'd like an article on wikipedia, but don't see the value in it if everyone is just into fighting over it. I will survive the loss, but still think it is a little un-fair to see all of the porno starlet’s getting a pass for their "up standing" and "notable" work and someone as myself (with 25 years and 2 Emmy awards) scoring a big "zero" in the eyes of the general community. I had been warned about all this, but it was only after the last 24 hours that I really have begun to believe these warnings.
- Again my sincere thanks,
- Roger C. Ambrose:
- Production Designer (of questionable note)
Roger ambrose 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- A few of the sites I question as to their notability and worth.
- [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]
Roger, I think you're misperceiving the reason for people's misgivings. Have a look at the style (and length) of other articles in Category:Production designers and Category:Art directors. They are far more terse and far less promotional. It's not in the style of Wikipedia entries to have 8 advertising montages of work and a portfolio of 16 images of set designs, every one emblazoned with the web address. Nor is it the style to have pages of CV listing every single production someone's been involved in: it's usual to pick the salient ones and summarise. To be blunt, the expectation is that this article should run to about one screenful. Tearlach 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- To all wikipedia editors, know I was and am new to wikipedia. I began my involvement here December 17, 2005. I began by (mistakenly) authoring an article on myself, after seeing an article on a friend and associate. I originally signed in as Roger ambrose (small “a” was a typo mistake I did as a newbie). At that time and up until this deletion “war” I edited this page from the same computer that, for whatever reason, changed my IP address (adelphia cable) several times:
- Roger ambrose
- 70.34.77.195
- 70.34.86.240
- 68.67.155.47
I did not understand the “signing in” mode, as fully as I do now. I was not trying to trick anyone with an anynomous IP “anon” editor mode to hide my tracks. I just honestly did not know the “rules”.
I also did not read the rules as far as “self authorship”-for this I am sorry. I was just an excited newbie, exploring this new “wiki-stuff”. When I was made aware of any issue by your editors, I tried to learn and correct my errors, but not until this “uproar” did I see how off I was.
I have no idea who or why Cuthbert11 has got such a bug up his/her butt over my mistakes and this article. He/she seems to be recently involved here, just because of this article. Maybe a personal issue against me, who knows.
As for the notation that I am all over the internet (by my own actions), all these other encyclopedia listings are bot-copies of your wikipedia site. I had nothing to do with these and am still amazed at the unfolding internet connections. For me this has been an internet education beyond belief.
As I have stated before. It is wikipedia’s call on this article. I just find it very amazing to watch unfold. There really does not seem to be any control over who is a qualified editor and who is just in it as a “control/power” issue. Whether there is an article on me here or not really does not matter. My life and the quality therein is not derived from wikipedia’s acceptance or not. I have and will continue to “have a life” outside of this cyberspace arena called Wikipedia.
Sincerely,
Roger C. Ambrose
Roger ambrose
01:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Aka:
- 70.34.77.195
- 70.34.86.240
- 68.67.155.47
Additional Point
If all links to officical wesites are a no-no and need to be weeded out because of the commercial and advertisement nature of these links, then wikipedia and its editors need to be fair handed across the board and review many other sites that have and continue to do the same ie Shaquille O'Neals site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_and_Teller, as well as others. If the organization is to be fair and balanced these sites too would be up for review. Sincerely R.Ambrose
Roger Ambrose
To whom it may concern:
- From the beginning of this discourse I have attached my name and identified myself as Roger Ambrose or R.Ambrose. I have not hidden behind any web name here or even tried to remain anonymous. I mistakenly created (authored) an article on wikipedia and so stated in my discussions early on, but unfortunately these were deleted by your administrator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AmiDaniel last night. I am being portrayed here as someone trying to get away with something illegal and unethical. This is unfair. I was only trying to make things right. I presented a revised version of this article yesterday and was not slammed as I am here by your esteemed editor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JChap2007 for changes I was submitting for your review today. I have asked questions concerning my editing of this article, but to my understanding have not receive that definitive “NO” as JChap has implied. No one has addressed the issue of “third parties” being a thinly veiled cover for the many “autobiographies” currently on wikipedia, nor has anyone addressed my question as to why the numerous and notable “porn stars,” who have articles that they have obviously written themselves, get a pass from your detailed discourse. I fully understand that I will be totally banned from your wikipedia site for expressing myself at this tone and with this frankness, but I have had it. Delete the article with extreme prejudice and ban me to the far reaches of the intent galaxies. This has been an extremely educational and somewhat bruising experience. Signed for all to see, Roger C. Ambrose
Roger ambrose 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- While I don't like the fact that he's been adding his own page, it seems that if another user added this page it would likely survive a deletion discussion. His IMDB biography is quite extensive, I see no reason to vote to delete simply because he created his own entry. Surely we would prefer if someone else created it, but I think if we include small time actors who have had bit parts or background roles their entire lives, this person surely is as notable if not more than them. I vote to Keep but lets try to ensure that the user who created the page understands that he shouldn't create his own page.
Batman2005
20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
IMDB is not a good source for notability as its just a listing, if you can find criteria in WP:BIO for keeping, I'll support.-- JChap 20:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC) See above. -- JChap 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- While I don't like the fact that he's been adding his own page, it seems that if another user added this page it would likely survive a deletion discussion. His IMDB biography is quite extensive, I see no reason to vote to delete simply because he created his own entry. Surely we would prefer if someone else created it, but I think if we include small time actors who have had bit parts or background roles their entire lives, this person surely is as notable if not more than them. I vote to Keep but lets try to ensure that the user who created the page understands that he shouldn't create his own page.
Batman2005
20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say that these two criteria fit as well as possible for someone in this field Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work andPainters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field . Certainly he's not a published author or editor or photographer, but each of those refer to the arts and while set design is its own small corner of the market, his work has been "published" (put on television and movies) in MANY different places. Additionally, photo's of him with his emmy's indicate that he's achieved noteriety and praise for his works which will likely become a matter or enduring historical record in his particular field of work.
Batman2005
21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very creative arguments. You've almost convinced me its a border-line case (which I'm usually sympathetic to). However, the well has been poisoned.
I've got to agree with Sandstein--Put this on a user page. We can turn the article into a stub and let someone else expand it. If he's really notable enough for inclusion, someone will.-- JChap 22:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very creative arguments. You've almost convinced me its a border-line case (which I'm usually sympathetic to). However, the well has been poisoned.
- I'd say that these two criteria fit as well as possible for someone in this field Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work andPainters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field . Certainly he's not a published author or editor or photographer, but each of those refer to the arts and while set design is its own small corner of the market, his work has been "published" (put on television and movies) in MANY different places. Additionally, photo's of him with his emmy's indicate that he's achieved noteriety and praise for his works which will likely become a matter or enduring historical record in his particular field of work.
Batman2005
21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, certainly he's done quite a lot in the field of Art Design, i'd like to see somebody else create the article though. Batman2005 00:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Batman, I understand this line at this point, but "the horse has left the barn" as it were. Is there anyway for me to get a "third party" to revise this article to one that conforms with yours and the others concerns and guidelines? R.Ambrose
**Why are the words "third party" in quotation marks in your statement? -- JChap 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ambrose, i'd be happy to look through the article and make some changes if any need to be done. I'd also be happy if the article were to be deleted, to create one using the information here that you've supplied. I think we're mostly in agreement that this is a worthwhile endeavour, and it's not an actual policy that autobiographical articles are deleted, it's just discouraged...lets let the afd run its course, as its possible that a consensus to keep will emerge. Batman2005 01:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Batman, thank you for offer to act as the third party. I have submitted a revised article herein for all to review. I will let the afd run its course, as you have suggest and hope for that consensus to agree on letting the article revised or otherwise remain. Thank you for yours and everyone's time and consideration on this issue. It has been truly a learning experience for me.
A point of observation
I understand where all the thought and discussion has come from and is headed. If I was more Wiki-WISE at the creation of the entire article, when I first logged in and registered under a different name other than Roger Ambrose, would I have been recognized as a “third party” not partial and more neutral? If so, then the question is how many other articles have been written by the Wiki-WISE or a “third-person” PR firm. The fact that I was honest and naïve at the onset now renders me a villain and poisons the well. Yes, this article was written by Roger Ambrose, yes is could be re-written to an even more neutral position, but are my actions totally out of line to eliminate this article completely?
A compromise idea would be to let me rewrite this article in a more neutral position and wording and to follow the requests to weed out any hint of advertisement that is the article, after which it is out there for the world to edit and change at will. What if inaccurate information was to be placed in the article after that point? Am I forbidden from making any editorial corrections?
Whether I am notable or not is up for interpretation, I only would like to know who has the final say or judgment here? If my actions have offended any editor or administrator, I apologize; they were not intended as such. I again leave this for your group discussion and will wait for the “final decision”. Sincerely R.Ambrose
Deletion is not understood.
I don't understand the complete deletion of this page. I am not trying to be a pest by re-submitting the article (it was all I knew how to do) I was not trying to be sneaky at all, I thought it was just an automated bot's deletion.
I have communicated with all the other editors comments and guidelines to the best of my ability. I could use some help here. As I was seeing from all the other comments by editors, I was following or changing any suggestions being made.
Now, as a more familar user of wikipedia, I understand that in fact I should not have created this article myself. I tried to keep it as nutural as possible, but to give as much info on the subject as possible. I appreciate the notation to the IMDb listing on my work as a reason for my remaining on wikipedia.
Again if I am totally out of line, so be it. I will live with your rulings here, but would like a civil explaination. Thank you. R.Ambrose
- So we have a clash between policies. The fact that he was fast in recreating a deleted page (itself grounds for a speedy deletion) bothers me. The fact that this is vanity, itself grounds for deletion, bothers me. But Roger C. Ambrose is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (it should be disambiguated from two actors named Roger Ambrose). So how do we split this baby? Move this to
Roger C. Ambrose (now a redirect page), make
Roger Ambrose a disambiguation page, and state in no uncertain terms that such autobiographies are not permitted on Wikipedia. The advertising must be eliminated, too - and the awards section and everything with his web site address must go.
B.Wind
21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The tone of this article also clearly demonstrates why, while not forbidden, autobiography is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. An article written by a third party would not read like this. Fan1967 21:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- So we have a clash between policies. The fact that he was fast in recreating a deleted page (itself grounds for a speedy deletion) bothers me. The fact that this is vanity, itself grounds for deletion, bothers me. But Roger C. Ambrose is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (it should be disambiguated from two actors named Roger Ambrose). So how do we split this baby? Move this to
Roger C. Ambrose (now a redirect page), make
Roger Ambrose a disambiguation page, and state in no uncertain terms that such autobiographies are not permitted on Wikipedia. The advertising must be eliminated, too - and the awards section and everything with his web site address must go.
B.Wind
21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Additional Point
If all links to offical websites are a no-no and need to be weeded out because of the commercial and advertisement nature of these links, then wikipedia and its editors need to be fair handed across the board and review many other sites that have and continue to do the same ie Shaquille O'Neals site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_and_Teller, as well as others. If the organization is to be fair and balanced these sites too would be up for review. Sincerely R.Ambrose
- My objection is not having a link to the official website (that is fine); but each picture in the article having the website address is crossing the line into advertising, which is a Wikipedia no-no. We must always toe the line between stating the facts and advertising, and must always favor the former. B.Wind 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Got it. I understand that line now and can if allowed get a "third party" to change this article to better conform to these points. Just let me know if I should spend the time getting it reworked. -R.Ambrose
- With all due respect, I am a little confused, if many of the editors here are “All about keeping Wiki a stand-up operation” and following the rules, then why are the sites below still on wikipedia. My credit list and experience to many would be considered more “stand up” than many of these "actors" and "actresses", and definitely more notable. Thank you all for your points and advise. I am a little burnt out on all the discussion over this article. All I want to do is make this right. I just happened to come upon all the actions and discussion because it was my day off and I was checking in. I'd like an article on wikipedia, but don't see the value in it if everyone is just into fighting over it. I will survive the loss, but still think it is a little un-fair to see all of the porno starlet’s getting a pass for their "up standing" and "notable" work and someone as myself (with 25 years and 2 Emmy awards) scoring a big "zero" in the eyes of the general community. I had been warned about all this, but it was only after the last 24 hours that I really have begun to believe these warnings.
- Again my sincere thanks,
- Roger C. Ambrose:
- Production Designer (of questionable note)
Roger ambrose 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- A few of the sites I question as to their notability and worth.
- [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]
Roger, I think you're misperceiving the reason for people's misgivings. Have a look at the style (and length) of other articles in Category:Production designers and Category:Art directors. They are far more terse and far less promotional. It's not in the style of Wikipedia entries to have 8 advertising montages of work and a portfolio of 16 images of set designs, every one emblazoned with the web address. Nor is it the style to have pages of CV listing every single production someone's been involved in: it's usual to pick the salient ones and summarise. To be blunt, the expectation is that this article should run to about one screenful. Tearlach 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- To all wikipedia editors, know I was and am new to wikipedia. I began my involvement here December 17, 2005. I began by (mistakenly) authoring an article on myself, after seeing an article on a friend and associate. I originally signed in as Roger ambrose (small “a” was a typo mistake I did as a newbie). At that time and up until this deletion “war” I edited this page from the same computer that, for whatever reason, changed my IP address (adelphia cable) several times:
- Roger ambrose
- 70.34.77.195
- 70.34.86.240
- 68.67.155.47
I did not understand the “signing in” mode, as fully as I do now. I was not trying to trick anyone with an anynomous IP “anon” editor mode to hide my tracks. I just honestly did not know the “rules”.
I also did not read the rules as far as “self authorship”-for this I am sorry. I was just an excited newbie, exploring this new “wiki-stuff”. When I was made aware of any issue by your editors, I tried to learn and correct my errors, but not until this “uproar” did I see how off I was.
I have no idea who or why Cuthbert11 has got such a bug up his/her butt over my mistakes and this article. He/she seems to be recently involved here, just because of this article. Maybe a personal issue against me, who knows.
As for the notation that I am all over the internet (by my own actions), all these other encyclopedia listings are bot-copies of your wikipedia site. I had nothing to do with these and am still amazed at the unfolding internet connections. For me this has been an internet education beyond belief.
As I have stated before. It is wikipedia’s call on this article. I just find it very amazing to watch unfold. There really does not seem to be any control over who is a qualified editor and who is just in it as a “control/power” issue. Whether there is an article on me here or not really does not matter. My life and the quality therein is not derived from wikipedia’s acceptance or not. I have and will continue to “have a life” outside of this cyberspace arena called Wikipedia.
Sincerely,
Roger C. Ambrose
Roger ambrose
01:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Aka:
- 70.34.77.195
- 70.34.86.240
- 68.67.155.47