Talk:Roland Perry

Dispute resolution

Att: YellowMonkey

With the complete deletion of Roland Perry content that you have done on three occasions the Adminstrator has locked the page for dispute resolution.

One user requested that the Roland Perry content be edited to remove facts that were not verified. This is a helpful suggestion. I have now studied the WikiPedia policy on Biographies_of_living_persons and believe that I can edit the content to that style.

YellowMonkey, please join with me in requesting that the Roland Perry page be unlocked by the Adminstrator so that I can make editing changes and then I would welcome your higher level editing skills to develop the material.

Haruspex101 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Att: YellowMonkey

Have added broader biographical information on the subject Roland Perry -- which includes balance of sourced reviews... some positive and some critical.

The previous posts were a collection of criticism with small scope.

Please direct your higher-level edit skills towards specific parts of the new material rather than mass-deletion as an edit-war is not becoming.

Look forward to your considered edits on the material.

Haruspex101 (novice user) Haruspex101 (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello YellowMonkey

I have made this entry on Current Requests for Unprotection:

Roland Perry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Adminstrator advises he/she is now on holidays for weeks. I am a novice user and have made suggestions in the Talk Page. It may be that the YellowMonkey user (who has been deleting the new content) is a rival real-world author of the subject of the article Roland Perry. That would be a shame. Previous posts from YellowMonkey user and others earlier in the year were all critical -- one-sided in my opinion. I would like to work on Roland Perry page content to improve balance via sourced factual information. See Talk Page for my suggestion to edit content. Haruspex101 (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Let's edit the content together on the Roland Perry page. That's where the facts can be revealed and contested as required. That's my understanding of how Wikipedia works.

Haruspex101 (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI) ISSUES

Background:

o Roland Perry entry in Wikipedia was seeded with a short bio entry (now out of date) in Nov 2005. Roland Perry is an internationally published author and journalist with 40 years experience, writing books, articles and filmscripts in a variety of genres -- namely US politics, Espionage, History (World War 1), Biography, Fiction and Sport (mostly cricket).

o Criticism sourced from one rival cricket writer was added on 12 Dec 2008 by Mattinbgn user

o In Jan 2009 YellowMonkey user added a series of selective sourced criticism on some of Roland Perry’s publications. There was no balance to the criticism. YellowMoney is a highly experienced Wikipedia editor and self-discloses as a cricket writer. What is YellowMonkey's motive for posting only selective critical/negative material? Is there a Conflict of Interest (COI) here?

o Attempts were made in March 2009 to remove the one-sided criticism. This was reversed by an Administrator given there was no competing material to clarify the facts in a broader context.

Haruspex101 Arrives:

o Is not Roland Perry

o Has worked with Tim Burstall and Roland Perry on film development projects

o Is a novice Wikipedia editor. Has never added Wikipedia content before, and would welcome assistance with the technical aspects of doing so.

o Collated factual sourced material on Roland Perry and posted this on Wikipedia in July 2009 using journalistic style to bridge the sourced material and some opinion. Material is not contested by Roland Perry, even though it includes a good deal of sourced criticism of Roland Perry along with the overwhelming positive reviews of Roland Perry’s broad writing career which includes journalism and 22 published books on US politics, British espionage and history (WW1), along with a variety of biography, fiction as well as cricket history.

The Response:

o YellowMonkey returns and deletes all new material in its entirety

o Johnlp user adds a helpful tag: “This article may contain wording that promotes the subject through exaggeration of non-notable facts. Please remove or replace such wording.”

o Haruspex re-edits material offline but before can make online edits YellowMonkey deletes all content again, with the result that the content becomes protected under an editing-warring freeze by an Administrator until the dispute can be resolved

The Way Forward:

o YellowMonkey please declare any Conflicts of Interest. Are you a cricket writer seeing themselves in competition with Roland Perry in cricket writing?

o Unprotect Roland Perry page. Haruspex then edits in closer Bio of Living Author style and what is now understood to be Neutral Point of View (NPOV).

o Please all-the-world contribute on the Roland Perry factual material in a balanced way.

Haruspex101 (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

SOME DIALOGUE

YellowMonkey makes this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&diff=301695541&oldid=301680673

Haruspex101 replies and encourages YellowMonkey to come to this Dispute Resolution Talk Page to work together on the substantive material under dispute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&diff=301707722&oldid=301707329

Haruspex101 (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

And so on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&diff=301708590&oldid=301708257

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&diff=next&oldid=301708590

Haruspex101 (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Whole Article Deletion by YellowMonkey User

Posted NPOV revised-edits on content of Roland Perry (an internationally published author with 22 books). Content is balanced with appropriately sourced reviews (including criticism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&oldid=301966078

YellowMonkey deletes entire changes without comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&diff=301966340&oldid=301966078

Dispute obviously requires independent intervention for resolution. I am a novice user. YellowMonkey is a highly experienced user. Some help to bridge the technical-skill divide is required and would be greatly appreciated.

Investigation into YellowMonkey Conflicts of Interest (COI) are also required.

Haruspex101 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

The Way Forward:

o Revert to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&oldid=301966078

o YellowMonkey please fully declare any Conflicts of Interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haruspex101 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

o Replace outdated first bio intro paragraph with the following:

Roland Perry (born 11 October 1946) is a Melbourne-based author and an occasional film-maker. He has written in a variety of genres including biography, history (World War 1), politics, espionage, sport (mainly cricket) and fiction. His nine biographies include Monash: The Outsider Who Won The War , which won "The Federation of Australian Writers Melbourne University Publishing Award" in 2004; Miller’s Luck: The Life and Loves of Keith Miller, Australia’s Greatest All-rounder , awarded Biography of the Year (2006) by the UK Cricket Society; The Fifth Man (a biography of Lord Rothschild, the Third Baron); and The Don, a biography of Sir Donald Bradman .

...as attempted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&diff=301966803&oldid=301966340

Haruspex101 (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

My 2c. Firstly, YM does not have any conflict of interest. Writing in places outside of Wikipedia does not mean that a conflict of interest has taken place. If you have proof of a conflict rather than a handwaving assertion, now would be good time to produce it. Wanting NPOV and WP:V applied does not mean one has a conflict of interest.

That said, I am not opposed to much of your suggested lead, but I would remove the awards from the lead and include them later in the article. Otherwise, the lead comes across much too promotional. This is an encyclopedia, not a blurb on the back of an airport-bookshop book. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mattinbgn. Lead para is one issue. Do you have a view on YellowMonkey deleting the entire rest of the re-edited NPOV Roland Perry content?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&diff=301966340&oldid=301966078

And yes agree, case should be made for any YellowMonkey Conflict of Interest (COI) via documentation. YellowMonkey be best to please make any COI disclosures before this. Haruspex101 (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

OK, well, I've retrieved some of the more obviously necessary (biographical) and sourced material that YellowMonkey deleted, plus a good chunk of the summary of the literary career, losing a lot of far-too-lengthy exposition of critical reception. In some cases sources could be improved. How's this look? Rd232 ^talk 15:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 That's a great synthesis. Appreciate you bringing to bear your objectivity and higher-level editing. +I have updated the first para; author Roland Perry is onto his 23rd book now. Would also appreciate following up with any questions on how to improve the content and if any further disputes brewing. Haruspex101 (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Thanks. You wrote a lot of good stuff - but it was just too long. If you want to reintroduce other material, I suggest you do that slowly and/or propose specific things here. For improving the article, at the moment I think focus on the lead - it could be a slightly better summary, and read better. If you're feeling ambitious for the article as a whole you could head to Wikipedia:Good articles for advice. Rd232 ^talk 02:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Dispute Part 2

OBJECTIVITY OF EDITORS

The following users have a substantial history of collaboration and association, such that comments in support of each others' edits in relation to this Roland Perry page lack objectivity, and interventions on such matters as user blocking are (and were) inappropriate:

YellowMonkey

YellowAssessmentMonkey

Mattinbgn

VirtualSteve

All of these users are Administrators entrusted with privileged user rights -- and with those rights comes a need for scrutiny and oversight.

An independent review of YellowMonkey's messages in July 2009 to these users may reveal personal requests for intervention on the Roland Perry article.

Independent editors and administrators are required for the Roland Perry article.

Also the following entry [see first edit sentence] is defamatory, libels the subject Roland Perry and invites legal action:

libels subject Roland Perry

It should be immediately deleted -- if an independent Adminstrator could please see to that.

The following "small change" version [of the sentence referred to above] leaves the comment still defamatory, libels the subject Roland Perry and invites legal action:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&diff=303205467&oldid=303137426

It should be immediately deleted -- if an independent Adminstrator could please see to that.

The content of the Roland Perry article has already been edited extensively by an experienced independent editor Rd232. From this base the content is best developed in a transparent way through Discussion on this Talk:Roland_Perry page before substantive edits are made with consensus to the Roland Perry article.

Haruspex101 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Please also make comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=19

Extract:

Problems with the Roland Perry page have returned. The very experienced user YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted the content extensively, with these actions including: loading up the Cricket Book section in a very unbalanced way with purely negative criticism and removing positive reviews; cutting away all of the subject's career overview except to wrongly emphasise a related political article in Penthouse and leaving one para on a minor Guam project (rendering the career section bizarre); and willfully adding a paragraph which directly maligns the subject [see first edit]:

maligns subject

I would appreciate any ideas and assistance to resolve these problems.

Balanced content and sources can give a fair view of the subject; but only if there are the conditions for genuine discussion and development of the content.

Despite many invitations, the YellowMonkey user has not used the Talk:Roland_Perry to discuss content changes to date.

This is all very disappointing.

Haruspex101 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Haruspex101 (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

I removed most of the stuff that was from Perry's own book saying that he was the first do something, when it was clearly misleading advertising. Perry is not an independent source, so him saying that he was the only person do interview Bradman is not acceptable. It is also false. Same for all the other stuff from his own book claiming he had exclusive interviews with KGB agents. No independent proof. As for the award he supposedly won and claimed in his book, a check of the organisation's website shows that someone else one it YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello YellowMonkey, thankyou for engaging on this Discussion page. I can address your few comments above but there are so many edits that you have made to the base Rd232 ‎that we need to revert to that and then work through each editing proposal systematically. Ideally I ask that you make the reversion voluntarily to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&oldid=303248300

Or alternatively an experienced independent editor can make this reversion before we move through a discussion of the substantive edits that you propose. There are also many edits that I would like to propose via this process such as the balance issue in the Review section. In this way we can reach a consensus on the content for the benefit of the Roland Perry article.

It is curious to me why comments that you make on Roland Perry's cricket writing are mostly negative, when I note for instance that you (along with User:Mattinbgn) have made major editing contributions to this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Miller

where 296 of the 573 references and citations are to: Roland Perry "Miller's Luck"

4 refs from Haigh; nil from Frith

Also I note that amongst a number of your Wikipedia awards you have been awarded a "Featured Article" star for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Keith_Miller

where 37 of the 59 Notes are to: Roland Perry "Miller's Luck"

nil refs from Haigh; nil from Frith

YellowMonkey, I also urge you to review your many comments about Roland Perry spread across Wikipedia as I believe that you have maligned the living author Roland Perry on a number of occasions. I can assist you to identify these comments that should be immediately deleted.

Haruspex101 (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Although 37 of the 59 refs are from Miller's Luck, most of these were of identical content to the original biog of Miller by RS Whitington, with the structure of the book exactly the same and the same anecdotes. Ditto for all the other Perry cites. They are a convenient means of accessing classics like Robinson and Pollard that are now out of print and are not in libraries, as 90% of the content is isomorphic to the original (per citation in the article). After I have finished the article, I can go to the archival library (which doesn't allow taking home of books) and spend 2 hours mapping all of Perry's information from the original book (without the errors that Perry introduced in the process of cutting and pasting and rewording, of course, per the scholarly reviews provided). The mapping is so quick because of the direct correlation in content. In the articles, I had to check all the scorecards and then fix the wrong numbers introduced by Perry (eg, in one 30 page chapter of one books, there is one wrong score/data for undisputed fact for each page); with a book it is more convenient as one only has to add "author, p. 12" whereas with internet scorecards, filling out all the url and new title for each scorecard takes a lot of time. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The diffs Haruspex101 pointed out above are not libel. They contain numerous, numerous reliable sources backing up those claims. There's a difference between reporting negative but well-known facts, and libel. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello rʨanaɢ, repeating a libel is itself a libel. I have made no legal action or legal threat. The nature of the material is, however, defamatory and should be deleted as per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel Haruspex101 (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

The only thing I have done is repeated what every learned cricket scholar like Haigh, Frith and Guha have said, and if that is "repeating a libel is itself a libel" then there is no way that you, the subject of the article, will allow anything except a vainglorious personal advert, in which case there is no need for me to talk to you anymore. I just need to get all the other cricket editors to sign here saying you're a waste of time. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

@Haruspex: Criticizing somebody's work is not libel. If a person publishes their work for the world to see, it's natural that there will be criticisms. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not cherrypicked criticism, Haruspex/Perry has. I went to Cricinfo, the world's biggest cricket specialist news website, which is affiliated with Wisden, basically the bible of cricket. All the cricket experts contribute to it. Every review there is negative because all of the specialist cricket historians have read all the classics and they will see de ja vu when they read Perry. Haigh, Frith and Guha are acclaimed world leading historians and have won Book of the Year from The Cricket Society and Wisden. The praise reviews of Perry come from people who are not cricket experts. One was by a chef, another a novelist, and others by random anonymous newspaper staffers who have to review all the books without specialist knowledge in any topics. A review by a low-skill journalist who incorrectly said that Ishant Sharma, one of the world's leading players was left-handed, and didn't know who the captain of the West Indies was, removed. Obviously not learned, who would take the opinion of a person who thinks that Rafael Nadal was right-handed as expert over a cutting-edge world leader? The arbcom has ruled many times that scientific journals trump pseudoscience all day long, and in this case we have world leading historians who have read all the books and know when something is a repeat or is piled full of errors, and a bunch of people off the street who have been chosen selectively because they did not see it. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff: Uncited awards removed. Uncited claims removed; The author's own claims of achieving some alleged unique feat removed, as they were self-referenced and not reliable. The claim that he is the only guy to interview Bradman, for instance, is flagrantly false. Other stuff that like his claims to have insider KGB information also need indept references; Perry's no Litvinenko and if he was he probably would be dead by now. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reboot

OK, part of the problem here is that there are too many changes; it's hard to see what's going on. I'm going to have a crack at reviewing the changes and some editing. First point already done: the Cricket Society "commendation" (not actually an award I think) doesn't seem to have a solid source, so we should leave it out unless one turns up. Rd232 ^talk 08:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to say I just don't have the time or patience to sort this out. YellowMonkey, in removing some unsourced and unnecessary stuff and some unsourced and necessary stuff (the latter esp from the Career section) and introducing probably excessive criticism, made a mess of the article structurally (diff) and created WP:NPOV / WP:UNDUE issues in terms of the criticism. I've removed the criticism summary from the lead as WP:SYN, but this clearly needs more work. Rd232 ^talk 08:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roland Perry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013170704/http://www.writers.asn.au/uploads/file/pdf/FAWResults2004.pdf to http://www.writers.asn.au/uploads/file/pdf/FAWResults2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)