User talk:Rorycellan

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)[edit]

Hello, Rorycellan, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Rgds, - Trident13 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Cellan-Jones[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Thank you. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is certainly true, but the purpose of this edit was to illustrate a BBC News report on Wikipedia. Viewers in the UK would have just seen it aired on the Six O'Clock News. Keep up the good work, Rory! NotMuchToSay 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good report, and I thank you for it. It would be important to note that factual inaccuracies are, for the most part, quickly reverted, especially on high traffic pages. I shall take this opportunity to warn you that if you continue to enter deliberate falsehoods into articles, you may be blocked. Thanks, Mart inp23 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, thank you for that report - it's interesting to note how quickly the vandals turned up after the report was aired, I couldn't semi-protect the article fast enough to stop one lot of anonymous vandalism, but it should be fairly safe for the next 5 days... -- Arwel (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if your first job at the Beeb was as a researcher on Look North (which version?), we'd be glad to include the info in the article if you can provide a verifiable source - we'll even include the bit about your astrophysics doctorate and being in Take That if you can prove it! :) -- Arwel (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it was part of a news report, but it still goes against Wikipedia's guidelines, see Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point. -02:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romis (talk • contribs)

The NUJ boycott issue[edit]

Hi Rory, The edits appear to have been made by a very occasionally-editing account, and by an occasional IP address (probably the same person, I suspect). As such, I don't think they're likely to recur, especially as I've left a strongly-worded warning about violating the Biographies of Living People policy on their talk pages (it's particularly ironic that they actually linked to your blog and appear to have got the positions of the two sides on the Israel boycott issue diametrically reversed!).

Dymuniadau gorau.

Arwel (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is alive![edit]

Greetings Rory. Wikipedia is alive and kicking! So we lost 49,000 most of whom barely edited or did anything for the site. The community that do the bulk of the work are very much active and looking forward to witnessing the encyclopedia grow and venture into new topics in the future and improving quality/reliability. Admittedly the bureacratic side to wikipedia is very off putting to the extent that at various times the core editors have felt like leaving and often have. The tendency seems to be to give new people warnings about an edit that was "against guidelines" before actually welcoming them to the project. However, there are ways to deal with the wannabe policemen that plague the site and get on with building an encyclopedia! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]