Talk:Michael Everson/Archive 3

Does Michael Everson have a Chinese name?
We have an article for Andrew West (魏安, Wèi Ān) and Ken Lunde (小林劍, Xiǎolín Jiàn, Japanese Kobayashi Ken), but not yet for Michael Everson, the major contributor of Unicode. ;-) – the above anonymous comment came from IP User User:202.64.193.247 at 2004-08-14T13:26:02
 * Now there is an article "Andrew West"; no article "Ken Lunde" yet. – Kaihsu 19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now there is an article "Ken Lunde". – Kaihsu 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now there is an entry for "zh:葉密豪". – Kaihsu 13:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So, indeed, the answer is now "Yes". It's 葉密豪 Yè Mìháo Evertype 12:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Michael Everson have an Irish name?
A question waiting to be asked, for symmetry of sorts. – Kaihsu 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's Michael Everson. Irish speakers often use the Irish form of my first name, Mícheál (vocative a Mhichíl). Everson is not an Irish name, and is possibly Old English Eoforssunu 'boar's son'. That could be literally gaelicized as Mac Toirc which is usually anglicized as Mac Turk, a name rarely found in Co. Down and originating from Galloway in Scotland. One could invent things, like Mac Eabhair 'ivory's son' or Mac Eibhir 'granite's son' but those aren't attested Irish names either. Pádraig Ó Snodaigh, owner of the Coiscéim publishing house, calls me Mac Síorraí 'eternal son', a translation playing on 'ever', which is rather Peter Pan-like. But really, it's Michael Everson in Irish, gaelicized a bit in An tEversonach 'Mr Everson'. On my mother's side we know of one Irish name, Doran, which is Ó Deoráin. Evertype 10:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking forward to something after the Fennoman manner, but maybe not. I have added a bio-stub for Pádraig Ó Snodaigh. – Kaihsu 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, there is actually an article for "Hiberniores Hibernis ipsis". – Kaihsu 20:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've heard one or two fellows referring to your man as Mícheal Ó Síoraí. Whathojeeves 23:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, now, Tim. Your Irish spelling is as bad as your Cornish. And what you say is mistaken. Can you name the one or two fellows? -- Evertype·✆ 13:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Michael Everson have a Cornish name?
Is he accorded a cognomen or soubriquet, or even a Bardic name? Whathojeeves 10:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tim. But it's a secret. -- Evertype·✆ 12:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Michael Everson important?
In response to the current AfD in progress for this article, I'd like to ask an honest question: Why, exactly, is Michael Everson important? Specifically, in reference to the opening paragraph of the article: In short: this article talks about the problems in which the subject "has been active in supporting" or "has been actively involved in" or "has an interest in", but it doesn't go into specifics about what the level of this involvement is, and as a result the article comes off sounding a lot more like a resumé cover letter. So, why - exactly - is Michael Everson important enough to deserve an entry in an encyclopedia? I'm not saying he isn't, I'm just saying the article doesn't answer this clearly. Don't answer me here - please answer by improving the article's opening paragraph. - Brian Kendig 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He's "an expert in the writing systems of the world" ... what, exactly, does that mean? That he can write in many different languages, or that he has won awards related to etymological research, or that he is a translator, or what? The rest of the article doesn't make this clear.
 * He's "a linguist, typesetter, and font designer." So what? There are many linguists, typesetters, and font designers in the world. What makes this particular one encyclopedic?
 * He's "one of the co-authors of the Unicode Standard." Unicode was developed by the Unicode Consortium, and the article Unicode says: Members include virtually all of the main computer software and hardware companies with any interest in text-processing standards, such as Apple Computer, Microsoft, IBM, Xerox, HP, Adobe Systems and many others. Is he an employee of one of these companies, or did he have a more active role in Unicode development; and if so, what exactly?


 * I've never met Michael Everson, but I did interact with him briefly several years ago on the IETF language mailing list. I came to this page after reading on Apple_typography that he had done work on OS X fonts. I'll just say that I find Everson's work fascinating and his bio eminently suitable for Wikipedia.  Unicode is an incredibly important standard for enabling the world to communicate, and Everson has played an integral role at a number of levels.  He's continually consulted on some of the tougher issues, and the whole Klingon thing is quite amusing.  I think it's absurd that this page is still flagged for possible deletion and has its neutrality questioned.  My only question is who he could have annoyed so much to justify spending the time to create User:SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay.  --DanKohn 08:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unicode is great; I agree with you there, and the Unicode article does a good job of explaining why. But this Michael Everson article simply doesn't explain what's important about him. It says he was born in Norristown, it says he's a Buddhist, it says he likes the works of Tolkien... but it doesn't mention any of the rest of why you say he's great: on what "tougher issues" is he "continually consulted"? What "whole Klingon thing"? Why is his work particularly "fascinating"? Please edit the article to remove the unimportant personal details and highlight exactly why you respect the man so much, so that other people can learn to have the same appreciation for him! - Brian Kendig 18:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael Everson is a top hat, and Unicode serves linguistic empires, and conflict between them, at the expense of linguistic minorities . I encountered him at a discussion forum about alphabets. A recently naturalised Irishman of US origin, it appears that he opposes Irish spelling reform publicly, while personally profiting from the surplus typesetting involved in traditional, archaic, prolix Irish orthography. See et seq. --Etaonsh 21:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A "top hat" is a man's formal hat with a high cylindrical crown. As for the rest, you're simply mistaken. I was naturalized an Irish citizen in 2000, which is not all that recently. Unicode supports linguistic minorities; I work to make sure that it does. You misunderstood my comments about Irish orthography completely (the ones here. Finally, type designers sell fonts, and there is nothing wrong with that. Cheers, Evertype 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your claim that Unicode supports linguistic minorities is clearly not without basis; but does it support minorities at the same rate that it supports larger linguistic communities? And even if it did, it would not give them/us the technological advantage needed/deserved to avoid extinction, in many cases.
 * Please indicate which scripts in this list you consider not to be used by minority languages: Balinese, Braille, Buginese, Buhid, Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics, Carian, Cherokee, Coptic, Cuneiform, Cypriot, Deseret, Ethiopic, Georgian, Glagolitic, Gothic, Hanunóo, Kayah Li, Khmer, Lepcha, Limbu, Linear B, Lycian, Lydian, Mongolian, Myanmar, New Tai Lue, N'Ko, Ogham, Ol Chiki, Old Italic, Old Persian, Osmanya, Phaistos Disc, Phoenician, Rejang, Runic, Saurashtra, Shavian, Sinhala, Sundanese, Tagalog, Tagbanwa, Tai Le, Thaana, Tibetan, Ugaritic, Vai, and Yi Evertype 08:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My educated guess is that a linguistic community conservative enough to support contemporary Irish spelling would by no means fully accept you as an authority only six years after naturalisation.
 * What you have said here does not suggest to me that you know very much about traditional (pre-1950) Irish orthography, about current Irish orthography, or about any of the various proposal that have been made in the last 100 years for altering Irish orthography. Further, you do not seem to understand what it is that I said on the Qalam list. I was arguing in support of current Irish orthography.
 * Yes. And opposing spelling reform, as already stated.
 * I am opposed to bad spelling reforms of Irish, yes.Evertype 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. You are on record, in the link given, and here, as opposing spelling simplification in this endangered minority language most conspicuously in need of it, in principle, thus fuelling suspicions that both the language, and the Irish people identified by it, are once again in the grip of a powerful outside influence adopting the authority of apparent autochthony. --Etaonsh 21:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An bhfuil eolas ar bith agat faoi litriú na Gaeilge? An féidir leat labhairt na Gaeilge? An mbíonn tú ag úsáid na Gaeilge chuile lá? I am opposed to bad spelling reforms of Irish such as those you suggested in 2003 were necessary for political reasons just as you are doing here. I do not own the Irish language. I do not have any particular sway over Foras na Gaeilge or any other Irish-language organization. I am well-informed about current Irish spelling-reform proposals. These are not bad proposals as yours have been. The people who use the Irish language are not oppressed by their current orthography, whether or not it needs some minor reform. This is off-topic. Evertype 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have removed four citation requests from that paragraph. Why? Because, basically, it's a bunch of libellous tosh. If we're going to have a 'Michael Everson' page, it is improper for it to consist of uncritical adulation. You have ample opportunity to correct any misapprehensions and false conclusions I state here.
 * I have already done so here. For that matter I did so in 2003. You are labouring under a number of false assumptions. Take that on board, but I'm not going to spend any more time on this. Evertype 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I remain banned from the forum qalam[] for daring to take on the almighty Everson. --Etaonsh 11:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't ban you. Seshat banned you in 2003 for being political and off topic, not for disagreeing with me. As you are being here. Pray don't continue. Your "almighty Everson" is offensive and unnecessary. Evertype 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How better to encapsulate the affliction?
 * Seshat is a mere tool in the hands of a powerful man, like the rest of the boot-lickers of qalam. --Etaonsh 15:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Seshat is a person. You have, however, suggested that I run Qalam and that I banned you. This is untrue, and what you are saying about me is untrue, and I am not going to discuss anything with you after this set of edits. Evertype 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comments are not improving the article, they are only a means to argue with me. Evertype 10:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in arguing with you personally, but regarding your influence and its effects.
 * An argument three years ago about Irish orthography on an internet discussion list has nothing to do with my work or my influence. I am not going to rehearse that argument, or defend it, or find citations for it. Anyone who reads the screed you wrote in 2003 can tell it for what it is. Evertype 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 'The difference between a politician and a statesman is: a politician thinks of the next election and a statesman thinks of the next generation.' -James Freeman Clarke.
 * Non sequitur. This discussion is not interesting.
 * You repeatedly show a pattern of hostility towards relevant arguments and points you appear to fail to grasp. --Etaonsh 11:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In every instance where I have answered you substantively (such as when I suggested that you examine my other proposals since the Klingon proposal) you have ignored it.
 * No, I simply failed to comment, having successfully extracted your proposed explanation.
 * Troll I name thee. Perhaps this section of the Talk page should be archived. Evertype 10:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * => a cover-up. Name-calling is welcome in proportion to its pertinence, IMHO.
 * You are the one using terms like "boot-lickers" and "adulation" and all sorts of other nonsense. If you want to talk about Irish orthography, go and do so where it is relevant, namely on Talk:Irish language. Your allegations that I have any influence over Irish orthography are ludicrous (as were your suggestions for its reform in 2003 in my opinion) and this discussion is pointless. I'm not going to continue. Evertype 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I recall no such 'suggestions for its reform.' --Etaonsh 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WTF is 'Seshat?'
 * Seshat is the moderator of the Qalam list, who banned you from that list in 2003 for being off-topic. Evertype 10:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or for challenging established authorities and followings? --Etaonsh 11:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Take it up with Seshat. In my view, the Qalam archive speaks for itself. And that discussion list is nothing but pub-talk anyway. Evertype 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the fonts I have made support older Irish orthography as well. Finally, I have lived in Ireland since September 1989, and it was the judgement of the Minister for Justice that my application for citizenship was accepted. (I made the application in Irish, by the way.) I really don't understand your complaint. Evertype 08:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your recorded support for 'Klingon' over endangered natural languages belies an insensitivity towards the communities in question which could only be American. --Etaonsh 23:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The proposal for Klingon was made in September 1997 in part because there was a Linux kernel implementation of it. Perhaps if you were to examine my other proposals since then you might reconsider whether your criticism has merit. Evertype 08:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The present argument with Etaonsh (Richard Comaish) began with him attacking me for being a "top hat" (whatever that may be) and profiteering in some sense by opposing Irish spelling reform. I don't oppose sensible reform of Irish or any language, and as for the rest, well, it speaks for itself I suppose. Evertype 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is any basis at all in the points I have made here, I don't suppose there is much hope now of them migrating onto the article page, in the present company (compare also ). One can only hope for a dramatic conversion on the road to Dún Laoghaire. --Etaonsh 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Co-operation
Let's go through it with the aim of removing the "autobiography" notice on the top. Cheers. – Kaihsu 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up and moving forward
The article having survived its second VfD, I have decided to clean up the talk page by moving all of the previous discussion about whether the page should be here at all to an archive, for simplicity's sake. I see that SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay, who proposed the second VfD is now editing the article, and asking me questions directly in the edit summaries. I therefore consider it pretty fair game to take continued interest in the contents of this page, particularly as SayWhatYouMean doesn't appear to actually know anything about me or about the work I do; he has from the very beginning said that all I do is "make Unicode fonts", which isn't true, and indeed is not why I am "notable". Brian Kendig asked similar questions, and by the gods, I'm going to feel perfectly free to answer them. But first I will note two things. It is not against the rules for the subject of an article to edit the article.
 * From Autobiography
 * "It is difficult to write neutrally about yourself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself. However, in clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. [My italics.] So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism, and not just a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. However, be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it."
 * From Biographies of living persons
 * "In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it.  They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email.  Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed. Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:
 * It is relevant to the person's notability;
 * It is not contentious;
 * It is not unduly self-serving;
 * It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
 * There is no reasonable doubt that it was written by the subject.

So, now. We've got people agreeing that the article should be here. We have concerns about verifiability and neutrality. Let's improve the article and get Brian and SayWhatYouMean the answers to their questions. The current spate of edits hasn't been very balanced. I don't mind Elves, but I suspect the insertion of them into the article was driven by whimsy (to ba charitable) rather than by the thought that it might improve the article. Evertype 21:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In light of recent discussions, I am going to remove the "autobiography" notice on the top. Let's now focus on the substantive, not the procedural (which has been dealt with already).  – Kaihsu 22:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that the article has improved immensely today; recent edits have tightened the article's focus, removing irrelevant detail and making it clear why the rest is relevant. Reading the article now, I can see why the subject is not just another linguist and font designer, and in fact is noteworthy in his field. It's become an article worth keeping. - Brian Kendig 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Elves and editors
Actually, Everson, the inclusion of the Elves part gives your bio a bit of a thesis since in your "early life" you get started with Tolkien then you're on a project to include Tolkien typefaces. And actually, I'm a bit confused here, dwarvish and elfish are languages, they're just fictional ones. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quenya and Sindarin are languages. Tengwar and Cirth are not languages, they are scripts. I corrected your error. The text "two other conscripts under consideration are Tengwar and Cirth, scripts used by Tolkien's fictional Elves and Dwarves respectively." [...]
 * [Actually, I found out a whole lot about Tegwar and Cirith in just a few minutes of research. They're both used by both races. I'm suprised you didn't know that.... LOL. -- SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)]
 * You wish. Of course I knew. But the Tengwar are chiefly used by the Elves and the Cirth are chiefly used by the Dwarves. It seems to me that the words "races of' in one of your latest edits is superfluous. And could you please nest replies on the Talk page? It makes it easier for the reader. Better still, don't insert things into people's posts. Evertype 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [...] is more accurate than what you have restored, and the text should be reverted for accuracy. In my view, the description of Tolkien's novels as "fantasy novels" to be dismissive in any context (not just the context of this page). They are "heroic romances". I should also mention that "childhood interest" is not an accurate description either as I was not a "child" when I encountered Tolkien.
 * [Oh god, who cares! --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 18:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)]
 * Apparently accuracy is appreciated on the Wikipedia. And verifiability. Well, I know when I started reading Tolkien and you don't, so it's not unreasonable for me to inform you that your insertion was inaccurate. Evertype 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * However this bears on your other summary deletions regarding relevant biographical data, but I shall raise this issue on another occasion. Evertype 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (Please do not vandalize what people say on the Talk page. as you did with your inaccurate "sour grapes" edit. Thank you.) Evertype 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm going to have to give you a big fat *nobody cares* with the "whimsy" of the edits. They've been collaborated, checked and balanced. Bad faith/good faith that's your personal opinion and it's all cited, so quit trying to revert it back into your autobiography. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do try to be civil. I did not suggest that Elves be removed. Regarding the number of authors/editors of the standard, I changed "one of the twelve" to "one of the" because this number is not constant. It was 12 for Unicode 3.0. It was 13 for Unicode 4.0. Unicode 5.0 is about to come out. Saying "one of the editors" is surely sufficient. I know that it is your view that I try to aggrandize my importance with regard to the the other authors, which is why you maintain that the number is relevant. This is your presumption, and has nothing to do with my motivations. Your recent edit "one of the twelve primary" is infelicitous. The Unicode Standard 4.0 used the word "principal" which has a different connotation. Evertype 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, we'll go with "one of the editors". --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, the Unicode Standard has authors and it has editors. It's a cooperative team. Various people are titled "editor", and own various chapters and so on that get handed on to the editor in chief, Julie Allen. I'm not one of those. I work as an author providing text, typically the block descriptions for new scripts, or rewrites of existing ones when necessary. That's why the back of TUS 4.0 says "the principle authors and editors". The title page of TUS 4.0 says "editors". The current text "one of the primary contributing editors" is a bit inaccurate because "contributing editor" is a term used in ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 for the ISO/IEC 10646 editing process. Surely "one of the co-authors" is not worse than this?

I believe it's useful to give a scope to the number. He's one of the editors of the Unicode standard... how is a reader to know how many editors are there? Two? Two hundred? Two thousand? How large is the group of which he is a member? - Brian Kendig 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Brian, there were 12 for TUS 3.0, 13 for TUS 4.0, and I think 14 for TUS 5.0. I don't know if this will help the article or not, but TUS 4.0 says this about my contribution:
 * "Michael Everson led the effort to encode the minority and historic scripts that were added in Version 4.0, and contributed significant improvements to the script descriptions of South and Southeast Asian scripts, including Bengali, Gurmukhi, Gujarati, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Myanmar, and Khmer. He authored all of the script descriptions for archaic scripts, and contributed to the descriptions of Armenian as well as Byzantine and Western musical symbols. Michael provided many of the fonts used in this standard, and extensively reviewed code charts, character names, and annotations."
 * Perhaps this text will help you determine what should be in the article. TUS 5.0 is not yet published, but the draft text about my contribution in that was (some months ago):
 * "Michael Everson was the driving force behind encoding many of the minority and historic scripts that were added in Version 5.0, and was a major contributor to their script descriptions. These scripts include Balinese, Coptic, Glagolitic, N’Ko, New Tai Lue, Old Persian, Phoenician, and Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform. Michael provided many of the fonts used in this standard, and extensively reviewed code charts, character names, and annotations."
 * Again, I hope this clarifies my author-or-editor role in that publication for you. Evertype 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go write a font or something? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from the unhelpful comments. - Brian Kendig 04:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you're right. Compliments to everyone who spent time cleaning this article up. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 05:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Probably the world's leading expert"
"Michael Everson (born January 9, 1963) has been described by Rick McGowan, the vice president of the Unicode Consortium, as "probably the world's leading expert in the computer encoding of scripts""... Statements like these are simply unecessary and uninformative. Please, stop it with the vanity. Zombies 17:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Evertype is fighting that one. I actually agree entirely with you that it doesn't belong. If you want, please remove it. I won't because Everson thinks i'm just being "mean". I think this whole article shouldn't exist. i'm the one who was going for the second AfD. If you think its vain and uninformative now, you should have seen it a week ago --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't fighting anything. Kaihsu got that text from Erard's article, didn't he? Zombies, by the way, is a new user who has made only one contribution (the one above). Evertype 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the "world's leading expert" quote is very good for this article, because it shows that an important person (the vice president of the Unicode Consortium) has high regard for Everson in his field of work. It's not mere vanity; it provides context and credence to the rest of the article - it would be as if Steve Jobs, for example, said that so-and-so is a leading expert in interface design; right there it gives you a clear picture of the person's relevance. If you can think of any better way to open this article while conveying the sense that Everson is a leader in his community, go ahead and edit. - Brian Kendig 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Brian, this speaks to one of the recent edits made to the article with which I really do disagree. What is now footnote 5 was made a footnote by SayWhatYouMean with the comment "a footnote please for readability". Point 1: The footnote isn't any more readable than the text was inline in the text. Point 2: It is that material which is central to why this article is here at all. It should not be a footnote; footnotes are for people who want to verify something. The list of scripts is directly relevant to the result of the work. It should not remain a footnote. Evertype 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Having an enormous comprehensive list like that within text about your accomplishments when it's already summarized with "nearly 50 scripts in the Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 standards" is silly, overloads the paragraph and breaks the flow. It should be outside of the paragraph regardless, be it a footnote or in some sort of entirely seperate list in the article. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Overloads the paragraph and breaks the flow" are unsubstantiated opinions. That material has been in the article from the beginning, and no one has complained about it except for one reader who requested in June 2004 that the list be alphabetized. You, in fact, are the only person who has suggested that the list is "silly" and in any way inappropriate. The assertion that I have been involved (key, crucial, the driving force, whatever) in "encoding nearly 50 scripts" is not of interest. The footnote does not aid someone in counting them to see whether the number 50 is accurate. The assertion that it is the number that is important is the thing that's gone in the wrong direction. Of interest is not the number. It's Cherokee and Osmanya that are of interest. It's the fact that hardly any of the scripts in that list are of great commercial value which is why the big companies did not target them for early encoding that is of interest. I reiterate my suggestion that the tags be removed, as they relegate "important" and "interesting" information to a footnote. Evertype 13:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "It is that material which is central to why this article is here at all." This isn't Burger King. You can't always Have It Your Way. If the article were only here to list the fonts you made, it would just be merged with Unicode without the seperate. I still think it should be. Everson, you're an "expert in the languages of the world". Imagine all the other wonderful articles you could be writing right now and all the great things about linguistics and etymology etc. that you could be adding to Wikipedia. You wanted an article about yourself. Great. We'll be editing it. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is the subject of the article does not invalidate his edits or his opinions. Please stop insinuating that there are better ways he should spend his time. - Brian Kendig 11:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying so, Brian. SayWhatYouMean has shown again here that he really doesn't understand what this is all about, however. A list of the "fonts" I have made has never been a part of the article. I make fonts, yes, but that's not my primary mission. I'm not an "expert in the languages of the world", either, despite what he said on my talk page. I am (as the page used to say) "an expert in the writing systems of the world". SayWhatYouMean's edit deleting this phrase gave the reason "A linguist IS an expert in the writing systems of the world. Whimsical, redundant." which is simply incorrect. Most linguists don't know anything about writing systems per se. I, as a linguist, have neither interest nor expertise in transformational grammar or ergative languages. SayWhatYouMean's edit in this instance reduces the accuracy of the article. It would not be difficult to fix this. For "He is a trained linguist" read "He is a trained linguist who specializes in the world's writing systems". Evertype 13:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That you're an expert in writing systems isn't itself encyclopedic. And I don't exactly understand the meaning of "he is a trained linguist who specializes in the world's writing systems" (it seems to mean that you are trained in speaking languages which can be written down?) - would you please reword it into layman's terms in the article? And, if it's not relevant to the reason that you're particularly noteworthy in the first place, would you move it out of the opening paragraph? - Brian Kendig 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know the word "expert" is one of the things that bugs people. A polyglot speaks a lot of languages. I am a polyglot; English, Irish, German, Danish, Spanish, and French are my good languages, and I have varying facility with others. A linguist is someone who studies specific languages as well as language in general, and there are many different disciplines within linguistics. My special area of study and expertise is the study of writing systems. It's that specialization which informs the work I do encoding scripts in the UCS. Evertype 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't tell me, tell the article! - Brian Kendig 03:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic (that is, about the first paragraph), I think the quote (from McGowan via Erard) is suitable. We want a verifiable and descriptive first sentence to show the relevance of the subject, for things that develop below to hang on to. Unless someone can come up with a replacement (and please discuss here before editing, since this is getting controversial), we should not waste time arguing theoretically about "vanity" and such. – Kaihsu 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally? I'm delighted that the article has all sorts of external verification links and so on. There is a bit of material that ought to be restored however, for accuracy. Evertype 13:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean like how since you moved from Norristown, Pennsylvania to Tuscon, Arizona you're a expert buddhist polyglot self-made irishman scientist of the writing systems of the world? --205.162.51.137 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As soon as every person in the world has a Wiki entry, then this rather person should have one too. But until then? Delete it. Vote for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.94.60 (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reiterated call for substance
Now that the article is in an acceptable shape, I suggest that we only Anything else is likely to be unhelpful at this stage. – Kaihsu 05:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) add new substantive information;
 * 2) correct spelling and grammar mistakes; and
 * 3) improve for style (be careful here!).
 * I would like to suggest that some of the biographical information which has been removed has been removed for no particularly good reason. Most biographies contain information about birthplace and residence. In my case, it's useful (in some sense) to note that I was born and educated in the US but emigrated to Ireland which has been my permanent home since 1989. The previous versions noted that I was born in Pennsylvania but grew up in Arizona (two very different places to be influenced by). They also noted that I live in the west of Ireland now; the article as it stands states that I moved to Dublin (from where?) and suggests that I still live there, which is incorrect. And I still don't understand why my being a Buddhist annoys SayWhatYouMean, and I think the reason he gave for deleting it ("You weren't born a Buddhist. Expand why you are now in replacement.") is inappropriate. My Buddhism is not unrelated to my interest in the scripts of South and Southeast Asia; note my work on Tibetan, Sinhala, Lanna, and Myanmar among others, though there is hardly any reason to explain why I am a Buddist. When he deleted the references to Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Mayo, his comment was "Only the parts that relate to why you are notable. With the religion part, you claim Buddhism somehow is highly important in why you do what you do. Explain why, or it's worthless mentioning." Surely "He is a Buddhist" is accurate, inoffensive, and sufficient... to indicate that I am not a Muslim for instance, though the photo of me in Esfahan and the beard might suggest so... Evertype 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kayah Li
Kayah Li seems speedy deletable to at least one admin: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Kayah_Li

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Autobiography tag
I think the Autobiography NPOV tag recently put on the page is unnecessary. The original text I wrote in 2004 has been well worked-over by a good number of people (compare with the first edit please). That the subject of an article watches the page and participates in its editing is not against the rules by any means. The most recent "edit" I made was in reverting a change from "Buddhist" to "American Buddhist". (While I have US and Irish citizenship, I do not live in the US and do not practise my Buddhism there, so it was a gratuitous and inaccurate change.) Wikipedia's rules permit the subject of an article to make such corrections. If you have an issue with this, or consider any text in the article to be particularly POV, make your case here first and get consensus from other editors. Thank you. -- Evertype· ✆ 17:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is relatively NPOV (although there are instances as vanity, especially in the form of "considerable" amount of works in Irish typesetting and the self-indulgent quote in the introductory sentence, as it was mentioned by a former member of a small nonprofit organisation), and I wouldn't bother if you, Evertype, had created the article two years ago and have not heavily edited it since, but since you do, it is, by the very definition of the word, an autobiography.  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 17:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That tag is not a "Subject edits this article" tag. It is an NPOV dispute tag. This article recently underwent a good deal of review and rewriting by people other than me. I did not put the quote in the first sentence of the article. Kaihsu Tai did. The person who made that statement to the New York Times is not a "former" member of the Consortium, either—so you are wrong about that too. Discuss POV edits on this page if you wish. Improve the article. But your application of the dispute tag is inappropriate. (By the way, I have typeset many books in Irish. A "considerable" amount, even.) And do NOT summarily restore the NPOV tag to the article without having discussion with OTHER editors here on this page. I would, as a Wikipedia editor, say the same thing about articles on other subjects, too. I will revert the placement of the tag on this article a third time if you put it back. This sort of thing must be discussed and agreed. Remember: While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel. That is what I did today. -- Evertype· ✆ 17:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that have previously encouraged me to be bold and edit this article. See this statement of yours. Cheers, -- Evertype· ✆ 17:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not wrong about anything, really. The quote was made by someone who is no longer the vice-president of the organisation, as recently stated.  According to your website, you've actually typset a smattering of books, and to write otherwise smacks of vanity and boosterism.  Furthermore, your quoting policy does nothing to further your argument; you didn't remove any inaccuracies or libel, so I suggest you re-read it.  It's rather tacky to create articles about oneself and then fuss about when other editors want to make sure that people reading the article know that it's an autobiography.  You are the primary editor to this article.  My adding of the autobio tag was quite appropriate; as someone who is mentioned to be an expert linguist, it's beyond me how you do not understand what the word "autobiography" means.   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my comment; feel free to edit the article, but it should have the autobiography tag on there  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 17:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were wrong. That person is still a vice-president of the organization. He just prefers that his name not appear in the Wikipedia. You did not look at the right place in my website. Look here and you will see more than a smattering. This, apparently, is relevant to my being an Irish-language activist (as mentioned in one of the categories put there by another editor, not by me. The autobiography tag you want put in this article flags it for POV dispute, which is not appropriate, given all the edits by other editors recently. The inaccuracy I reverted today was an incorrect category change. I maintain my view that you should get consensus from other editors of this article before putting that tag on the article. Now the onus is on you to get that agreement. I do not think I am being unreasonable. -- Evertype· ✆ 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, indeed, that is quite considerable. I was looking elsewhere.  Apologies.  I also looked at the Unicode Consortium website and did not see that person listed amongst the executives, so if you could point me in the right direction to see where he is listed as a vice-president, I'd appreciate it.  In regards to the tag, I don't see how consensus is needed to place an autobiography tag on an autobiographical article; it's pretty straight forward.  As I mentioned on your talk page, I'd be happy to modify the template to reflect a different tone   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 17:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your apology is accepted. I note that you have not voiced a credible objection regarding POV in this article. Regarding your editing of the AfD templates and the provocative question you asked, I have two things to day. First, i had nothing to do with it and object to your implication, and second, I have asked another Admin to rule on what should appear in those boxes. The Category:Wikipedian autobiography is already applied to this Talk page. Why is that not sufficient? The article is an article. Its content isn't disputed, and if there is dispute, raise the issue here. There's no reason to put a Disputed tag on the article itself. It is difficult to think that you are not being malicious, I am sorry to say. -- Evertype· ✆ 18:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

On the question of whether "keep" or "no consensus to delete" is more appropriate, the first thing I want to point out is that in neither case did the admin who closed the AFD also put the "Old AFD" notice on this page. The first AFD was closed with the comment "I am ending this nonsense and closing the nomination early. There is clearly not going to be a consensus to delete", while the second was closed with "The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep." Thus, strictly speaking, "no consensus to delete" is more appropriate. However, while I agree with that result for the second AFD, when I look through the first AFD, I actually think there was a consensus to keep (as opposed to the absence of a consensus to delete) when only the comments of established Wikipedians are considered. With the notable exception of Radiant!, virtually everyone who voted to delete in the first AFD was either an anon editing from an IP address, someone who had only just joined Wikipedia at the time of the vote, someone who has since been banned from Wikipedia, or someone with an unhealthy interest in the GNAA. So, discounting the votes from the anons, the newbies, and the trolls, there were very few delete votes that can be taken seriously (Radiant!'s being one of the few). So if I had been the one to close the first AFD, I would have called it "consensus to keep". So, since Michael asked me to "rule on the matter" (as if I had that kind of authority!), I would say the notice for the first AFD should say "keep" while the notice for the second should say "no consensus to delete". Nevertheless... is it really so important? Whether the messages on this page say "the result of the discussion was keep" or "the result of the discussion was no consensus to delete" doesn't seem to me to be a matter of earth-shattering importance. Angr 18:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit by someone interested in the Cornish Revival
I have corrected unsubstantiated POV Whathojeeves 23:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit because it was incorrect. My work is not to study languages, but to support them. Your other edits to Ken George and Philip Payton suggest that you are a supporter of Kernowek Kemyn orthography, and I think your edits regarding Payton and me are POV since we dislike Kemyn. -- Evertype·✆ 09:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

People should not be allowed to edit their own Wikipedia articles. I mean how narcissistic are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.94.60 (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it possible for someone who has seemingly achieved so little in his life to have so many enemies, who are willing to take time out to alter a wikipedia article that shouldn't even exist on any objective measure? Maybe his one talent is to be capable of winding people up.