Welcome to Wikipedia, Roger Pilon! I'm LEvalyn, and I've been assigned as your mentor. All new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just left this message with Tacyard: For years, my bio page, written by others, has needed a serious rewrite. I've now done it in Word, using the Wikipedia template style, with many Wikipedia links, and 45 endnotes to reputable citations. But how do I upload it and replace what's there now (all of which I incorporate in this draft in a far more orderly way)? Can I send you the Word document? Roger Pilon (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LEvalyn, I've done what you suggested (in red). I went to the User:Roger Pilon site and in the discussion box I uploaded my whole Word document, incuding the 45 multiple endnote citations, but the formating did not allow me to include the relevant numbers in either the text or the endnotes, so there's no telling which endnote goes to which place in the text. Nor could I embed in the text the many links I had there linking to Wikipedia and other documentation. Let me also paste in here a message I left earlier to "Diannaa." Where do I go from here? Roger Pilon

Thank you for your reply, Diannaa. I can understand how Wikipedia might be wary of autobiographies, but what is one to do when the bio under one's name is so fragmented as to be seriously incomplete or, worse, misleading. Regarding "the lack of sources," as I've said, the bio I wrote last night is rich with mostly Wikipedia linked citations, and whould have had 45 endnotes with multiple citations to reputable sources (e.g., NYT, WSJ, WaPo, LAT, law review articles, etc.), had I known how to add them. (My insertion in the new discussion box includes the endnotes, but without the numbered text, because it doesn't seem to allow for that.) So, "lack of sources" isn't the issue: readers will be able to know what's true because they can go to the sources. Regarding your concern that "some of the content [I] added was previously published online," I don't know what you're referring to: The sparce fragments in my current bio? My date of birth? My position? The articles I've published? We come back, then, to my first point: What's one to do about correcting the record with a more ample, accurate account of one's life? Ask someone else to submit the copy? That kind of "workaround" could easily be done, of course. But what is the point here. Is there otherwise a problem with the richly sourced, neutral, fact-based piece I submitted? Can't it be judged on its own merits? I trust you will agree that people with well established--indeed, distinguished--careers are understandably concerned about misleading accounts of those careers on Wikipedia, especially since AI is now using Wikipedia so heavily in its learning. This is not a trivial matter. I would appreciate it, therefore, if you could help me to establish at Wikipedia the kind of account of my life that one would want before the world. I am, after all, long in the tooth, as is said, and my obituary is fast upon me. Thank you. Roger Pilon (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roger Pilon, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your username, Roger Pilon, matches the name of a well-known, living person. If this account appears to be used for impersonation, it may be blocked under the Wikipedia username policy.

If you are the person represented by this username, please consider the legal consequences and potential for harassment. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username.

If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org including your real name and your Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. Please do not send documentation without being requested to do so.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username.

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. Alternatively, you can just create a new account and use that for editing. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why.

Thank you. MossOnALog^Talk 21:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I AM the "well known, living person" represented, very poorly, as "Roger Pilon." I'm not worried about harrassment (my desultory Wikipedia bio has been there for years), but I am worried about how poorly it portrays my life story. A Chris Miller, Senior Wikipedia Editor EncycloDigital, whose gmail name is miller.wikimeria.editor, has approached me about arranging everything for me for a substantial fee, but it appears to be a scam. As a well-published author myself, I can write my own bio myself (and have, elsewhere). And as I wrote before, I have a well-documented Word draft I'd like to upload, or at least have a Wikipedia person upload. Suggestions? Roger Pilon (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Roger Pilon. Yes, you are correct that being asked for money is a scam. You should not normally edit the article about you directly. Please put the changes you want to make on the article's Talk page, in a "change X to Y" format. Please include reliable, independent sources. If you use the request edit wizard, your changes will be flagged up to other editors who can review them and make the changes. Tacyarg (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roger Pilon! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Roger Pilon, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roger Pilon. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Roger Pilon, 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 article subjects 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 Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• 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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Roger Pilon. Please request changes on the article's Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For years, my bio page, written by others, has needed a serious rewrite. I've now done it in Word, using the Wikipedia template style, with many Wikipedia links, and 45 endnotes to reputable citations. But how do I upload it and replace what's there now (all of which I incorporate in this draft in a far more orderly way)? Can I send you the Word document? Roger Pilon (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See reply in section headed Username policy above. Tacyarg (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand any of this. Here's what I emailed you just now in response to what you wrote to me at 3:25 AM (EST), and I repeat: WHERE IS THERE ANY "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" IN WHAT I WROTE ABOUT MY LIFE? WHO KNOWS THE SUBJECT BETTER THAN ME? NOTHING I WROTE WAS UNTRUE OR MISLEADING.

What has become of the “Roger Pilon” Wikipedia page I spent many hours last night and this morning creating, including many, many links to Wikipedia and other sources? There is no “conflict of interest” here. Everything I wrote is well-sourced—and would be even better sourced if I knew how to do endnotes,

I went to the site you just sent me to and it told me, before I put all this work into creating a proper bio to replace the poor, fragmented one that was there.

Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Roger Pilon.

To start a page called User:Roger Pilon, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then publish it.

That is exactly what I did. Where is the bio I created last night and early this morning? What has become of it? Where can I find it? Roger Pilon (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. Writing or editing a Wikipedia article about yourself is strongly discouraged. Please see the guideline at Wikipedia:Autobiography for details.

Another problem is the lack of sources in the content you added; while you may know that the material you added is true, Wikipedians and our readers have no way of verifying that it is true unless you provide citations. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, an official Wikipedia policy, for what reliable sourcing for a biography would look like.

Another problem: some of the content you added was previously published online. Copying previously published material into Wikipedia is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, Diannaa. I can understand how Wikipedia might be wary of autobiographies, but what is one to do when the bio under one's name is so fragmented as to be seriously incomplete or, worse, misleading. Regarding "the lack of sources," as I've said, the bio I wrote last night is rich with mostly Wikipedia linked citations, and whould have had 45 endnotes with multiple citations to reputable sources (e.g., NYT, WSJ, WaPo, LAT, law review articles, etc.), had I known how to add them. (My insertion in the new discussion box includes the endnotes, but without the numbered text, because it doesn't seem to allow for that.) So, "lack of sources" isn't the issue: readers will be able to know what's true because they can go to the sources. Regarding your concern that "some of the content [I] added was previously published online," I don't know what you're referring to: The sparce fragments in my current bio? My date of birth? My position? The articles I've published? We come back, then, to my first point: What's one to do about correcting the record with a more ample, accurate account of one's life? Ask someone else to submit the copy? That kind of "workaround" could easily be done, of course. But what is the point here. Is there otherwise a problem with the richly sourced, neutral, fact-based piece I submitted? Can't it be judged on its own merits? I trust you will agree that people with well established--indeed, distinguished--careers are understandably concerned about misleading accounts of those careers on Wikipedia, especially since AI is now using Wikipedia so heavily in its learning. This is not a trivial matter. I would appreciate it, therefore, if you could help me to establish at Wikipedia the kind of account of my life that one would want before the world. I am, after all, long in the tooth, as is said, and my obituary is fast upon me. Thank you. Roger Pilon (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material you added was a match for the biography published at https://nclalegal.org/who-we-are/our-team/. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What?! First, the link you supply is not to a biography. It's from the website of the National Civil Liberties Aliance. And second, where's the conflict of interest? If you open the link, you'll see that I'm on the board of the NCLA! What's the conflict. There's no money involved. I'm not paid to serve on the board. It's a 501(c)3 non-profit public interest law group. There is NOTHING that I wrote that raises anything close to a conflict of interest. If ethics is your concern, I've taught the subject, in both philosophy and law. My Ph.D. is in ethics. I know the subject intimately. Roger Pilon (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tacyarg, Diannaa, and LEvalyn: I'm having real difficulties understanding how these COI standards apply to a case like mine as someone who has spent decades as a constitutional scholar in a think tank. Let's start with this: I'm trying to offer a credible account of my life's work to replace the scant page under my name that's been at Wikipedia for years. Now, I could ask someone else to do it, but I'd have had to commission someone who knew the many details I set forth in my submission. Or I could offer a neutral, factual account myself written in the voice of a third person, which I've done. Thus, the piece I submitted could easily be seen as having been written by someone else.

But it's the COI business, as applied to me, that most confuses me. How, can I "avoid linking to [my] organization's website in other articles?" That's where a great part of my work over the years is to be found. That's where more than a thousand of my writings, speeches, testimonies, media appearances, and more are located, which is why I directed the reader, for a fuller account, to "his Cato Institute bio page.[i]" And at the end of the piece I submitted, where I listed the "wide variety of legal and constitutional issues" Pilon has written, testified, or spoken about, endnotes 27 through 45 document that volume of work with multiple examples, many only available at my Cato bio page becauce they were published by or took place at Cato; many available elsewhere, but more easily found at my bio page; but many others available only at Cato because they go back to before the digital age. Is this "self-promotion"? Certainly not in the ordinary commercial sense, which understandably concerns Wikipedia. It's simply stating the record--documenting the facts claimed in the text. The reader doesn't have to take my (or the third person's) word for the facts claimed. There's the evidence, in the endnotes, which is precisely why I wrote the piece as I did, because I thought that Wikipedia rightly wanted things documented. Perhaps you didn't expect them to be so overwhelmingly documented. But there you have it. I rest my case!

[i] https://www.cato.org/people/roger-pilon. Roger Pilon (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all I am asking you to do is not edit the article directly, but to request changes on the article's Talk page, in a "change X to Y" format, with citations. This is the usual process for editors who are connected to the subject of the article. If the issue is that you aren't sure how to do this, we can help. Tacyarg (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]