Notoriousep

September 2023

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you recently removed content from Shelley Ross without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to wikipedia not as a consumer, but as a subject trying to edit false, defamatory, exaggerated gossip about me that I realized someone has manipulated with malicious intent. I went on my page to add an important achievement in my nonprofit job, raising complete funding for a phase 2 clinical trial to silence the deadliest form of pancreatic cancer at SUNY Downstate, only to find my page had become a "stub," only some belittling half-truths, leaving a false impression of a 50 year meaningful career. I am not trying to write a press release for myself. I am just trying to correct the record, offer proper context and balance. Why would someone write in the first sentence of my bio that I was worked for the National Enquirer when that was 45 years ago. Wouldn't you agree that belongs further below under the section of my years as a print journalist and book author.

Is it really a conflict of interest if I add citations of verified authorities reporting on the significance of a particular broadcast I produced, stories I investigated.

The fact is, as a woman executive, I advocated against sexual harassment in the workplace both in my journalism and in the workplace. Twice, I wrote very measured and important first person accounts of my personal experiences with men in power: Roger Ailes(Daily Beast) 2016) and Chris Cuomo (NYT editorial 2022.)

Why should those stories not be cited. Why cite others writing about what I wrote?

I look forward to your guidance. That these false stories continue to smear and belittle on Wikipedia, and my own grandchildren will not be able to learn of my awards, honors, achievements, on what is considered the central source of information, is extremely disturbing.

Best,

Shelley Notoriousep (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Shelley Ross, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Notoriousep. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Shelley Ross, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. and thank you for contacting me. I've had a very storied career, having won many awards, working my way up from a local feature writer to the corner offices at two networks. I'd never had a bad word written. But suddenly I found others vying for my job, leaking false and libelous gossip about me and orchestrating the end of my broadcast journalism career. However painful, this is not uncommon in network news. There was no fighting it. I finally re-invented myself and went to work in the non-profit sector, for The Cure Alliance which is an organization of global scientists working on cures for chronic, debilitating and fatal diseases. This year, we solely funded a clinical trial at SUNY Downstate for a novel treatment to silence the deadliest form of pancreatic cancer -- with generic drugs. When I went to update my wikipedia page, I found it reduced to a stub and re-written to minimize my professional contributions and leave false, defamatory citations everywhere. I am trying to fix this. replace false and vicious stories I couldn't fix back then, with true ones from the NY Times and Washington Post. I hope you will help me, perhaps even work with me so I comply with content policies. I am now 70 years old and I'm very proud of the meaningful work I've done for 50 years. I am happy for you to review what I would like to see on my Wikipedia page which I did not initiate, but would like to correct. Notoriousep (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Because you have been engaging in self-declared Conflict of interest editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Shelley Ross. You are welcome to make formal, well-referenced, neutral Edit requests at Talk: Shelley Ross. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi - I'm Girth Summit, another administrator here. I thought I'd take a moment to explain a bit further, and to give you some pointers on the next steps you can consider.

First of all, the conflict of interest. If you read through the guidance linked to above, you'll see that we take a dim view of people writing about themselves, or about organisations and initiatives that they are personally involved with. It's hard to write about yourself neutrally and objectively; far better to write about things you are interested in, but not personally connected to. Allow other people to make editorial decisions about you and the organisations you're involved with.

That is not to say that we will allow things that are untrue or defamatory to stay in place. If you have specific concerns about any of the content, you can use an edit request to suggest a change on the article's talk page (as Cullen328 suggested above). Another editor, who does not share your conflict of interest, will then consider it.

Now, above you ask why we would cite other people writing about your work rather than the work itself. That is actually fairly central to how we put articles together. We aim to summarise what reliable, independent, secondary sources say about any subject. Your own work is obviously not independent, and if it was used to support an assertion about you it would most probably be primary.

Finally, I'd add that a lot of the content you wrote didn't appear to be sourced at all. We don't write what we know, even if we are certain that it is true; one of our most important principles is verifiability, so we only write what can be verified by reference to a reliable published source. Stuff that is true, but which nobody has written about elsewhere (or which has only been written about by an article's subject) generally does not belong on Wikipedia.

I hope that all makes sense. Feel free to ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you have any questions. Best wishes Girth Summit _(blether) 08:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have many independent published citations but had no time to add them when I was indefinitely blocked. Sometimes there is a fine line between self-serving and a pointing out a significant television event. Such is the case with stating that Tom Snyder's interview with Charles Manson tripled the average rating of the Tomorrow Show, I have a link to a noted Washington Post critic (Tom Shales) discussing this. I would still argue that a link to my NYT editorial, highly vetted by their team, would be a proper link. Plus the article written by Patrick Healy on why he decided to publish it add greatly to the significance. Both advance a way forward in the #metoo movement that opposes wholesale firing as a remedy for accountability. It is significant that the story went viral. My career in many ways is the history and timeline of sexual harassment in the workplace. In 1981 Roger Ailes withdrew a job offer to work for the Tomorrow Show when I wouldn't agree to a "sexual alliance." I went to attorneys. He didn't deny it, but apologized. I went to work for him and proved I was the best candidate for the job (the Charles Manson interview.) Roger and I became colleagues an lifelong friends. I was disgusted when the women came forward at Fox New and wrote to his lawyer that despite our friendship I was going to write my own account, I didn't want to blindside him, but I felt sexual harassment in the workplace must stop. The lawyer, Susan Estrich, wrote back that she'd always been a fan of mine. It is distressing to read in my "stub" one sentence that I worked for the Tomorrow Show in 1981 and in 2016 accused Roger Ailes of sexual harassment. It looks petty and opportunistic. Especially without knowing how many stories I produced exposing sexual harassment (of men and women) in various industries and throughout the military. I hope my stub is expanded soon. I find my lifetime body of work misrepresented and trivialized at the moment. I hope you can help.I know this is complicated. Notoriousep (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328. Having done my homework, I am not ready to ask to be unblocked. I am quite happy to formally request expansion of my page with explanations and citations. I have personally worked through all the unexpected emotional triggers seeing my page reduced to a stub without the best sourcing, which editors would not necessarily understand. I ma now ready to request changes I think will add to Wikipedia. Notoriousep (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)