Talk:Michael Everson/Archive 4

Dutch name for Michael Everson
Could be Michiel Evertszoon. Evert comes from Everhard. Ever means boar. What you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pationl (talk • contribs) 08:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Everszoon, not Evertszoon, would be the Dutch cognate, but Everson serves just fine. -- Evertype·✆ 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What would the Afrikaans version be? Is 'Everson' a name of Boer origin?Whathojeeves (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC) This is not relevant, unless there is in fact evidence that he is in fact of South African origin. Since his picture shows him as being conventionally-attired, he would not in any event be a smock-frocked Boer.Spacely (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)d Why? Have you spotted him in a Berkshire pot-house?Sillymidon (talk)

Expatriate? Immigrant?
Angr, why did you think that was a "better fit"? To me "expatriate" implies a greater connection than I have. -- Evertype·✆ 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-published source
Self-published sources generally do not meet the requirements for Reliable Sources. Also, please refrain from making constructive (content related) edits to an article that is about you. You may request edits here on the talk page. Gigs (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I objected to your summary deletion of two entire sections here which are relevant to the work which I do (which is why this article is here), and that text has been vetted by many other editors and indeed been stable for a long time. There was no reason for you to make such large deletions. The proper thing for you to do would be to raise issues here on this page. You didn't do that. I do watch this page, which has been vandalized many times and I don't apologize for doing so. People are allowed to watch pages about them, and to revert mischief.


 * When I reverted, I also added a link to a list of published documents. That list is proof that I have, in fact, been instrumental in encoding the scripts. If for instance you want to know whether I had a hand in encoding the Phaistos Disc you can see that the document is listed on that page. (It also happens to be on the Phaistos Disc page on the Wikipedia.) Now I noticed that there were other footnotes which linked pages to my website (books.html for instance), so I thought, "Well, since Gigs doesn't think these are referenced, I will link to formal.html on the same website." Did you follow the link? It is just a list of WG2 documents, all available for public scrutiny on the WG2 website. They are public documents. What is "unreliable" about that? The formal.html reference points to more than two hundred documents which I wrote to get scripts encoded. That responded to your criticism. I do not think this is counter to Wikipedia practice. And I'm no newbie. -- Evertype·✆ 22:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have no business getting involved in a content dispute on a page where you have such a clear COI. The situations where you may edit the content are clear, removal of incorrect information, blatant vandalism, etc.   Putting that issue aside, a link to a self-published source that is a big list of other primary sources is hardly a reliable source. A direct link to each primary source where the specific information can be verified would be better, but still not ideal.  And you should have taken it up on the talk page, not edited your own article. Gigs (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As ET says, this info has been here for quite a while. There has been a good deal of discussion over possible COI, as well as RS, and the material you deleted passed muster. If you have a problem with it, you can bring that up here. There are plenty of us who would be immediately on ET's case if he started asserting ownership of the article. Restoring blanket deletions of peer reviewed material is not a conflict of interest. kwami (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I hear from you, Gigs, is angry rhetoric due to a POV about editing, not a reasoned discussion about any particular link. I objected to (and still object to) your summary deletions of two large paragraphs of material which has been stable for a long time, and which is (in fact) accurate. You did not discuss your concerns about the accuracy of the paragraphs on the Talk page. You just deleted the paragraphs. That's not constructive editing on your part. Trying to whack me on the head with your ideas about what I may and may not edit is also inappropriate. I have seen a lot of wicked vandalism on this page, and saw it go through three nominations for deletion. Boy, that's a lot of fun. Try it sometime. But you decided to delete, gosh, the entire paragraph about the subject of the article's life (birthplace, education). Why? I mean, really, why? Was something inaccurate there? Or were you just vandalizing? Looks like the latter to me. You've not given any rationale apart from your views on the "rules" of Wikipedia.


 * And now look at the content of the article. Someone, a long time ago, and I don't believe it was me, put a link to evertype.com/books.html as reference for the statement that I do "a considerable amount of work typesetting books in Irish". The page points to a long list of books, mostly in Irish, which I did in fact typeset. The only way to get more "reliable" proof about this would be to examine each book individually. If you were to do that you would find (gosh!) my name on the copyright page of each of them. Is there a specific problem with the article linking to that page on my website? No one has thought so so far, and you have not given an argument as to its unreliability. So when you summarily deleted the second paragraph, which is a list of scripts I was instrumental in encoding, all of which have Wikipedia articles about them, that also seemed to me to be vandalism. For goodness' sake, that material is the main reason the article exists in the first place. But I, trying to be a good Wikipedia citizen, put a link there to increase the "reliability" of the paragraph. That page happens to be to another page on the same website, evertype.com/formal.html. Now if the one link is acceptable it seems to me that the other one is. And did you look at the content of the page? Evidently not. It is a list of document titles hyperlinked to another site where all the documents reside. There is, therefore, nothing whatsoever Unreliable or POV or Original Research about that page. It's just a list of links. Links to documents written by me, hosted by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2, which, amazingly, "prove" that I was instrumental in encoding Avestan, Balinese, Bamum, Braille, Buginese, Buhid, Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics, Carian, Cham, Cherokee, Coptic, Cuneiform, Cypriot, Deseret, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Ethiopic, Georgian, Glagolitic, Gothic, Hanunóo, Kayah Li, Khmer, Lepcha, Limbu, Linear B, Lycian, Lydian, Meitei Mayek, 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, as well as many characters belonging to the Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, and Arabic scripts.


 * Now really. What is your problem with this? Not your problem with me. Your problem with these specific links and this specific text. You say that "a link to a self-published source that is a big list of other primary sources is hardly a reliable source". I can hardly agree. When you go to that big list you can easily find all of the primary materials by clicking on the links. But then you say "A direct link to each primary source where the specific information can be verified would be better, but still not ideal". I can't even begin to understand your logic here. First, what would be "ideal"? Second, do you really think that this Wikipedia page should have two hundred footnotes? Because there's more than two hundred links on evertype.com/formal.html and more are added regularly. In any case, I put the link there, in what I believed to be a courteous response to your evident concern that the list of scripts was unverified. I don't see how this constitutes "conflict of interest". You deletions were marked "Removed unverifiable information". I don't believe the information is unverifiable, and I provided a way to verify it. Surely now the burden of proof is on you to show that the list of links does NOT in fact link to documents written by the subject of the article about the scripts listed in the article.


 * I've seen your complaint on the BLP Noticeboard and left a brief comment there. -- Evertype·✆ 09:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The massive list of links, in addition to being poorly sourced, is not really readable. Saying something like "Has contributed to the encoding of a large number of obscure scripts, such as N'Ko, Ogham and Cherokee, as well as more common scripts such as Braille and Cyrillic." is more fitting an encyclopedia article.  Gigs (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your charge of "vandalism"... Any editor may remove unsourced, unverifiable material from any article.  Especially from BLPs.  Gigs (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral observer willing to help. If this is just really about E having restored certain information and it being bad that he did it, I'd gladly restore the same information in from an NPOV. I think that the information was all verifiable, and should remain. It is informative and inclusive about Mr. Everson and his vast body of work. It wasn't unreasonable, and it's a shame BLP issues are being used. E of course might have been better served to bring the changes by G to the attention of fellow Wikipedians who could have made the reverts, thus avoiding these COI/BLP/POV issues.--Sturmde (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The massive list of links…: The list of links is not "massive". Actually a few more could be added I think, as some scripts have been encoded since the last edit of the. But "massive"? …in addition to being poorly sourced…: In what way is it "poorly sourced"? I said before, evertype.com/formal.html gives a complete list of the documents written by the subject, all of which are hosted on a third site. In what way is this a "poor" source?  …is not really readable: Would you prefer a table with links to each proposal document? Table maintenance is fussy and many editors dislike them. Were you proposing a table? Saying something like "Has contributed to the encoding of a large number of obscure scripts, such as N'Ko, Ogham and Cherokee, as well as more common scripts such as Braille and Cyrillic." is more fitting an encyclopedia article: Isn't the point of the article to inform people who may be interested about the work of a person who has (in fact) added more scripts to the UCS than any other person? Consensus seems to be that that is a significant reason for the subject's notability. In that case, a full enumeration of the scripts in question is entirely appropriate, and your suggestion that it be pared down to listing five of them and saying "and others" is a serious disservice both to the subject of the article and to the readers interested in the subject's work. Regarding your charge of "vandalism"... Any editor may remove unsourced, unverifiable material from any article. Especially from BLPs: Well, any editor who just blanks two paragraphs from a bio without discussion deserves to be reverted, as you were. Regarding your other statements, it seems that you are more interested in a meta-discussion of Who May Edit What rather than in the actual content of this article, or of the work of its subject. -- Evertype·✆ 11:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That massive list has to go - something like "scripts including...." and then two or three examples not the laundrylist that it currently is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that consensus will retain it. Evidently there are people interested in the world's writing systems, and in the UCS, and in how the world's writing systems got encoded in the UCS, and by whom, who do not object to a "list" simply because it is "massive", but rather look at other content criteria. Of course, I could be wrong about consensus, but it does seem that all of those scripts are the reason the subject of the article is "notable". What would be the point of two or three examples? What could be wrong with a comprehensive list? Cheers, -- Evertype·✆ 12:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because we provide a high-level overview of a subject's life not a complete biographical listing - our articles on journalists and writers don't contain a listing of every single article they have every written, I don't see this as being different. As for consensus to retain, where do you see that? I don't see it on this page - can you link to it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The 60+ scripts listed are not a complete listing of "every single article" I have ever written—so I think your analogy is not correct. Indeed evertype.com/formal.html gives the full bibliographical listing of 200+ proposals I have written for various scripts and characters. Regarding the 60+ scripts, note please that all of them have Wikipedia articles, most of which refer to the UCS encoding the scripts have. The reason I'm the subject of this article at all is that for all of those scripts I'm responsible for one or more technical documents which led to their encoding. Regarding consensus... well in the archive you will find firstly that the "massive" list has been discussed previously and was retained, and above here you find two editors who supported the retention. Kwami in particular is very active in the Wikipedia's Writing Systems project. But in any case, I said "I suspect that consensus will retain it", meaning that we are once again revisiting consensus and I think the result will be to retain, as it has been in the past. -- Evertype·✆ 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, the consensus I got from what I read of the archived talk history and AfD comments was that the article should be edited heavily and pared down so that reflects the amount of verifiable information we truly have, and so that it is not as much of a self-promotion as it currently is. Continually reverting any substantial edits, and then if challenged, claiming that the edits were wrong because the information has existed in the article for a long time is a sort of circular logic.  Gigs (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blanking two paragraphs in a biography is not a "substantial edit" whether the article is about me or anybody else. You haven't given any argument but a blanket assertion that material is "unverifiable", and assertion is not sufficient. I have asked you specific questions and indeed given arguments why evertype.com/formal.html (1) is not "unreliable" as it points to off-site material and (2) is no different from other links to the same website put into this article by other editors. Here are some more specific questions:
 * You said "Self-published sources generally do not meet the requirements for Reliable Sources." Note the word "generally", which is not a blanket ban. In what way is the list of links to off-site documents "unreliable"? Be specific.
 * In what way is the article improved by NOT telling readers which scripts the subject has been instrumental in encoding? What's the point of an article that says "this guy as an individual encoded more scripts than anybody, and is notable for that" but then not telling readers which scripts they are? Please be specific in your response as to why vagueness in this matter would benefit users of the encyclopaedia.
 * "You objected to the "massive" list (1) without defining 'massive' and (2) without responding to the argument that the list is relevant and (3) without responding to the suggestion that it could be a table, but that the list seems less obtrusive.
 * You've ignored Kwami's comment and Sturmde's comment. Why?
 * It really seems very strange to me to see the argument "this should be pared down to the minimum" as though minimalism were the point of this encyclopaedia. You've claimed that material is unverifiable, but you have not given examples of what is unverifiable. -- Evertype·✆ 07:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the policy of Wikipedia when it comes to BLPs is most definitely minimalistic. The BLP policy states: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic"...."Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources [...] The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals". (Emphasis mine) Gigs (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Such a zealous witch-hunter you seem to be, Gigs. Remove! Remove! Ha ha ha! And yet at the same time, you ignore yet again my substantial comments and my specific questions relating to the content of the article. "I don't like it and I want to delete it" isn't actually substantive. The BLP policy may state "when in doubt" but in this case I really don't see what it is that you are doubting. -- Evertype·✆ 13:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As for what material is unsourced... the entire "life" section is basically just a copy/paste of your autobiography on your own site. A little of it is verifiable through the NYT article, but no where near all of it.  The massive list of obscure scripts might be verifiable with a massive effort on the part of the reader (which is a problem in itself), but has other problems in terms of being entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.  These are the two sections I removed, and this is the reason I removed them.  Please stop claiming I have not given you specifics.  Gigs (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You think it is "basically just a copy/paste" of evertype.com/misc/bio.html? Can you read? A diff will show your statement to be quite false. Do you object to the article saying that I was born in Norristown? Do you believe that this is false? How many BLPs on the Wikipedia "prove" the birthplace of their subjects? Regarding the "massive" list, did you notice that I mentioned this above and asked you things about it? Did you notice that I suggested that the "massive" list could be made into a table, but that it's probably just fine as a paragraph? Do you have any specific comment to these points? Or are you just going to keep blustering and trying to explain the Wikipedia to us? I'm not going to stop claiming you haven't given any specifics until you actually give some, or respond to the four very clear questions I gave above. -- Evertype·✆ 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gigs, I have a great 'perspective point' for you to consider. Let's suppose for a moment that tomorrow, Everson leaves for a monastery high in the Himalayas, never to grace the Internet again. (Unless of course, he comes across some ancient documents in that monastery that contain unknown scripts! ;) ) Worse, let us suppose he is struck tomorrow by deus ex machina lightning. He's now no longer with us. All of his work effort now is valid according to you, because you're harping on the de minimus standard for BLP. The problem is, the listings in the article are factual, not opinion. You're applying the standard for opinions of people who are still alive to the wrong issues. I've yet to find one source listed that isn't findable. Can you specify something that can't be found? Everson is one of the key people behind the expansion of what Unicode allows us to do. Do you suggest we butcher the article on Bill Gates too, because of BLP? Plus, you seem to seriously need some popcorn and a beer because you're making changes all by yourself. I don't see a group of Wikipedians acting here. --Sturmde (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Being factual is not the standard for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Also, the burden of proof is on the person adding or re-adding material, not the person removing it.  The fact that a larger group of Wikipedians is not able to edit this article is exactly the problem.  If you compare the text of this article to the self-published autobiographies on Everson's web site, it's nearly identical.   If Gates were editing his own article and adding mostly references to microsoft.com, I would absolutely support paring it back severely to only the most solidly verifiable facts.  Gigs (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "If you compare the text of this article to the self-published autobiographies on Everson's web site, it's nearly identical." Do explain how evertype.com/misc/bio.html (which hasn't been edited since 2006) is "nearly identical" to the article as it stands. And then be specific about what particular sentences you think are false or misleading. -- Evertype·✆ 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times I have to explain, truth is not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, and the burden of reliable sourcing is on the person adding material, not someone challenging it. Gigs (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't know how many times I have to explain", I reverted your summary deletion of two paragraphs which others have already defended here, and the material I added was a page of links to documents on a third website which are, in fact, the proposal documents for the 60+ scripts and the many thousands of characters I have proposed for encoding. What the bejeezus is "unreliable" about that document? I find neither logic nor reason on your part in this dispute. -- Evertype·✆ 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP Release 0.7
Why is this article included in WP 1.0? It doesn't meet the criteria, and only had a weak keep consensus from the last AfD. Gigs (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, the consensus was Keep not Weak keep. -- Evertype·✆ 07:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

After way too much digging, I finally found the nomination.
 * Michael Everson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) B/"probably the world's leading expert in the computer encoding of scripts" -- nominated by User:Lincher

Apparently it's solely because of that single claim, and was accepted without discussion. Gigs (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a matter for the Wikipedians who decide what to put into WP 1.0. I don't know what their policies are and I at least had nothing to do with it. I'm sure from your attitude that you would be very pleased to Teach Me A Lesson by having it removed. That seems to be the only reason you are interested in this page or its subject matter. -- Evertype·✆ 07:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am interested in any page that is spam or self-promotion, or that is being guarded from being edited by its subject. Gigs (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(See below) In light of this, I propose an edit, change
 * He has been described as "probably the world's leading expert in the computer encoding of scripts".

To:
 * Rick McGowan, vice president of Unicode Inc., described Everson as "probably the world's leading expert in the computer encoding of scripts".

This removes the passive voice weasel word problem that the original had. Gigs (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Edit - Weasel Words
Since Evertype seems content to bury my proposed edit in scattered comments, here it is again (comments transplanted):

I propose an edit, change


 * He has been described as "probably the world's leading expert in the computer encoding of scripts".

To:
 * Rick McGowan, vice president of Unicode Inc., described Everson as "probably the world's leading expert in the computer encoding of scripts".

This removes the passive voice weasel word problem that the original had. Gigs (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, McGowan said that he preferred his name to appear in the citation footnote (to the New York Times article) than in the text of the article, which is why the sentence was cast as it is. -- Evertype·✆ 07:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really irrelevant. If we use his words, they should be properly attributed to him.  Gigs (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which a direct citation footnote following the quote does. Rick McGowan won't always be vice president of Unicode, so what you suggest would become stale as soon as he no longer is. Everson actually is now by default the guru of computer encoding of scripts, do we just need to have another quotation or two that might defend just the "leading expert in the computer encoding of scripts"? Because McGowan's not alone in this sentiment. --Sturmde (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The next vice president of Unicode, Inc probably would not want words put into his mouth. It's a clearly contentious statement, and should be very specifically attributed.  Gigs (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's contentious? What's that mean? The quote is cited, according to Wikipedia principles, from an article which appeared on the front page of the New York Times technology supplement in 2003. Do you think that someone else is "probably the world's leading expert in the computer encoding of scripts"? I mean, if there were someone else (there isn't), then maybe it would be contentious.... Unless "it's contentious" means "I don't like it" to you. -- Evertype·✆ 14:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost every superlative like that is contentious. If any article had a statement similar to "Foo is the leading expert in bar"... that would be a highly contentious statement and I would expect it to be very specifically attributed to whomever said it. Gigs (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no superlative adjective in the phrase in question. (Do you suggest that the world has no leading experts in any field of endeavour?) See my response to Cameron Scott below, however. -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you asked 10 people you'd likely have 10 different answers as to who the leading expert was in any field. It's clearly contentious in any article.  That you resist even this most basic of edits to eliminate clear weasel phrasing illustrates the article ownership problems here. Gigs (talk)
 * Resist what? All I did was inform you that Mr McGowan had, however many years ago it was, said that he preferred not to have his name in the article and thought that the citation in the New York Times was sufficient. I didn't tell anyone how to edit the sentence. I said "which is why the sentence was cast as it is". Just above, you can see where I said this. Go on. Look. In terms of the encoding of scripts in the Universal Character Set, well, you can imagine that there are other people in the world who have written as many proposals and I have, and who have got as many scripts encoded as I have, but the record would show such imaginings to be false. -- Evertype·✆ 14:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems an rather exceptional claim, do any other source make this statement? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For my part I'm sure I've heard from others. You won't wish to believe that of course ;-) ... The list of scripts I worked on is a matter of fact, and as it happens no one else seems to have worked on the same number of scripts as I have. Of course in saying so, I'll be damned for being immodest or arrogant or whatever, but there just isn't anyone else who has written more script proposals than I have, as anyone in ISO/IEC JTC/SC2/WG2 or the Unicode Technical Committee will tell you. Is the claim "exceptional"? Well, since encoding has to do with the Universal Character Set, it's really, honestly, not. It's true. And evidently this interests people, because, in fact, the work is "exceptional". Ah, there, look at the radio interview (in the Exgternal Links section). On that site: "the Dublin-based typographer is at the forefront of a scholarly movement to encode every single language ever spoken for computer users all over the world". -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the dept. of linguistics at my U there is an article about Michael, posted on one of the bulletin boards, that supports this claim. I've seen several such articles over the years, but have never seen a similar claim about anyone else. Yes, it is an exceptional claim, as it applies to one person. But then, it would have to apply to someone, wouldn't it? And whoever it is, they're going to be into computers, so there's a good chance they'd come here to verify that their wiki bio is accurate. It's rather an exceptional claim to say that Barack Obama has the most powerful job in the world (though that's a bit harder to verify), and I'm sure he has his people keeping an eye on his wiki bio to ensure it's accurate, so should we object that that is a COI? Or that Michael Phelps has won the most Olympic gold medals? All exceptional claims, until you think that someone in the world has to be the most.


 * I don't know Michael in the real world, and have had my share of differences with him here. I've also fought to delete vanity autobios against shrill accusations from sock puppets. I might have had similar objections to this article myself, had I not already known pretty much everything it says from newspaper and magazine accounts. kwami (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RESOLVED -- Michael Everson COI/ownership RFC
I have requested wider community attention to this issue. Gigs (talk)
 * Of course you have. -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts from a very new editor: I see only two substantive changes discussed. First, the attribution of "the world's leading expert" is fine either way. I do not see a problem with "He has been described" and a footnote to the source. In the bio intros, such "expertise" is frequently without citations (e.g., Paul_Milgrom) and does not raise controversy. Second, a listing of all scripts with their own Wikipedia entries seems fine, though perhaps in a separate section (See Also?). The deeper disagreement seems to be not over stylistic issues, but whether "leading expert" is the proper biographical introduction. That should be decided by dispassionate editors. In this case, I think there may be COI issues (perhaps for both parties?), though most of the edits by Everson seem reasonable. TNplinko (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Note that this RFC is regarding COI and Ownership issues, not content issues.  Gigs (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gigs, I think your RfC is peculiar. It looks to me more that you are looking to take ownership of this article, rather than Evertype. Evertype's edits have been fair and watched for years. About 3 years ago, we restructured the article so that it didn't lead with the McGowan quote. If you look over at my talkpage, you'll see you're beating a dead horse. Obviously a living person has an interest in their article, particularly when one is a key person in the existence of the very place. The foreign language wikis wouldn't be the same without Everson's work through the years with Unicode. His monitoring (not ownership) of the page is no different from that of say, Jimmy Wales monitoring his. I would have restored what you cut, and I don't have any COI over this article. So what exactly are you wanting discussed, since you just slammed the gentlebeing before? Could you tell us please? --Sturmde (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)--
 * Sturmde, you have exactly two edits to this article previously. A change of one sentence is hardly a restructuring.  And even that minor change drew protest on your talk page from Everson. Gigs (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I went back and reviewed the history of this page and discussions relating to several other COIs at other pages to get a better understanding of the issues. I have zero edits to this page, which I understand is a good thing for an RfC. In this case, I do not see the substantive reasons for asking for comment. What, precisely, are you suggesting Everson has done? My (admittedly novice) reading of the history is that Everson has (1) reversed vandalism, and (2) added content which could be viewed by some as self-serving, but has discussed this with other editors. Bringing on this current debate was a delete by Gigs which was not mentioned in Talk until after Everson undid it. It seems the issues should have been in Talk prior to either change. Regardless, the suggestion by Gigs at User_talk:Evertype that both abstain from editing for a year seems somewhat misguided. TNplinko (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TNPlinko, you are surprisingly well versed for a new editor. In any case, the standard process is to make changes, and then if they are reverted, to then discuss them, not to discuss changes first.  This is called being bold.  One of the few times changes should be discussed and not made is when a subject of an article, such as Everson, wants to change an article like this one with a clear conflict of interest.  An editor should not edit an article about themselves except to remove libel or vandalism. The policy is very clear on this.  Gigs (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's called being wrong. Evertype didn't want to change the article, you did. And you did it without any consensus for your change first built on the talk page. If Evertype hadn't put the page back as it was, I would have, and I have ZERO COI issues on this. And I'd be just as bold to have put everything back. Difference is, everything Evertype has done, and even what I did years ago (which was substantial, contrary to your statements) was as a neutral observer resolving a previous conflict. See my talk page again. Evertype although not liking my restructuring of his job title, accepted that someone with a NPOV had made the change. I've yet to see any other Wikipedian agree with you on this talk page. Actually, if there were a consensus right now, even without Evertype in that consensus, your view isn't leading. Plus, you're not assuming good faith from anyone, and you're bordering on getting nasty. "The policy is very clear on this," you say!?!?!? Being bold doesn't include that kind of unilateral move. Build some consensus for your arguments, perhaps?--Sturmdetalk) 01:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am brand new to this debate. I've read the AfD discussions and the stuff from Sturmde's talk page. Everson really does seem to have followed the special rules for his situation. He seems especially careful to deal collaboratively with other editors to vet COI issues. He seems not at all to try to WP:OWN the article, but simply to try to make sure it treats him fairly --- a concern of many (most?) people who find themselves the subject of an article on the world's most browsed encyclopedia-that-anyone-can-edit.

Gigs, please consider the possibility that you are making the perfect the enemy of the good. In a perfect world, Everson would have his own Boswell. Look around. Does this world look perfect?

Please consider the possibility that you are displaying zeal for what Emerson called the foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of small minds. Everson is the reason we need COI rules, and he's following them. Just because many other self-editiors hold Wiki-policies in low regard, does not mean all do. Everson has shown a lot of good faith over the years, according to my reading of the record. Many self-editors are bad for the wiki. But not all are. Some are good. As best I can tell, Everson fits among the latter group. Cheers. David in DC (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved -- I will refrain from editing the article. I stand by everything I have said, but I will not drag this out longer than necessary either. I expect all of you who wrote to support Everson to hold this article to the same standards of Verifiability that any other encyclopedia article is held to.  Please don't forget that this is just that, and not a CV.  I hope that the massive, unreadable, list of obscure scripts can be made into something more concise and encyclopedic, but I won't be the one to make that edit.  I am closing the RFC, and requesting the protection be removed. Gigs (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, one hopes the people that can use the internet because of the availability of those scripts aren't too offended by you referring to them as obscure! You're certainly of course entitled to your opinion, but there's no need for your officious response. Look at how often you use "I", particularly your "I expect..." statement. That tone is snide, and really offensive to me. If you'd really been looking to assist the article, perhaps it would have been better to make a suggestion other than delete. Perhaps if the script listings were in a table, they might function better? --Sturmde (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they're fine the way they are. Not every list needs a table. kwami (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

American-Irish
You asked for disagreement. What notability there is is due to what the subject of the article does, and this epithet is not (ever) really applied to anybody. Tip O'Neill might have been described and might have self-described as "Irish-American" but I think the insertion of this into the first sentence as the VERY FIRST item is wrong. I'm sure as hell not notable for THAT. Nobody calls me American-Irish. And far as I know, nobody really calls any American who immigrates to Ireland "American-Irish". Bad edit. -- Evertype·✆ 23:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * David, "Irish-American" means "someone born in America of Irish descent". That isn't me. "American-Irish" would perhaps be ""someone born in Ireland if American descent". In all events, you have left "American linguist" in the first sentence, and that is misleading. I am nearly twenty years in Ireland, have dual citizenship, and my career involves my work on behalf of the Ireland in ISO. There should be no "national" adjective there; nationality is discussed in a subsequent paragraph. -- Evertype·✆ 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken another stab at it. David in DC (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how explicitly mentioning dual citizenship adds to the article, somehow. "Naturalized" implies that. -- Evertype·✆ 08:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Truly, an awful edit." So judgmental! I was just going by Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which says that all biographical articles should (not "must", of course) contain the subject's nationality in the first paragraph. Obviously, not every article has to meet these guidelines by the letter, but don't criticize me for trying. You should at least prepare a decent rationale for going against the de facto standards; it's going to come up sooner or later.
 * Furthermore, this isn't about "notability"; you're misusing that term. Notability dictates whether an article is allowed to exist; it says nothing of what the content is (cf. WP:NNC). You aren't notable for your nationality any more than you are notable for your birthday or your photograph, but it's all standard biographical information that people expect in the lead paragraph. "American-Irish" is not a common term but it's hardly an aberration or a "neologism" as David called it. Its meaning is pretty clear, and in any case, it is fully explained in the body of the article. —Werson (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You did invite disagreement. I disagreed! Evidently the problem here is the Wikipedia guidelines' assumption; To suggest that "the subject's nationality" appear in the first paragraph is difficult when a person has more than one nationality, because it doesn't appear to be easily implementable. Even "Irish-American" is usually an ethnic epithet rather than an indication of nationality. Most people who identify as "Irish American" are not in fact citizens of Ireland nor even eligible for that citizenship. So it's really not as simple as you suggest. -- Evertype·✆ 16:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Naturalized does not imply dual citizenship. For most of history, dual citizenship was a nullity. You had to foreswear allegiance to one sovreign if you undertook it to another. In the last 50 years this has changed some, but not to the point where naturalized implies dual. It leaves an easily answerable question unanswered. The MOS guides us to answer it up top. If the MOS is wrong, propose a universal change. Don't demand exemption here because it doesn't make sense to you. David in DC (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Demand? -- Evertype·✆ 09:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "American-born Irish"? That's what I'd use. It's fairly unambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To me that would apply to someone who was born in the US of Irish parents but brought over as a child. I came as an adult. For what it's worth. -- Evertype·✆ 10:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I certainly wouldn't read it as that. Or even think it might mean that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "American-born Irish" works fine; today's featured article Emma Watson uses that style. I wouldn't read it as "brought over as a child" at all, I would read it as exactly what it says. At any rate, it's all very well explained in the first section. David's current solution is acceptable ("He holds dual American and Irish citizenship" in the lead paragraph), but it's pretty unwieldy. —Werson (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't self-identify with the phrase as "American-born Irish" any more than I self-identify as "Irish-resident American". That phrase implies to me that I am Irish only, though happened to be born in America. "Arnold Schwarzeneggar is an Austrian-born American" is the analogy (though his article just uses the adjectives, evidently with the "current" one in front). I dunno. Emma Watson lived in France till she was 5 and was born to British parents. So for her "French-born Brit" makes sense for her. By the way wouldn't "He holds both American and Irish citizenship" would be better? -- Evertype·✆ 07:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It knocks Rupert Murdoch into a cocked hat, for starters! :D--79.78.40.2 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

An unattributed complaint (extracted from previous)

 * I don't question the assertion Michael Everson is a leading global expert on something, but I do question his methods of getting where he is, which include a rather shallow, pompous, bullying manner, the victimisation of those who question his conclusions, and collegiate support he musters in this from the likes of John Cowan. The trouble with biographies of living persons, in the encyclopedia-that-anyone-can-edit, is that the talk page is rather vulnerable to all one's past victims, unless one commits the rather vain and foolish act of joining in the debate on own's 'own' talk page. Yes, Everson is an academic expert on something of international interest - not (the language of) manners, mark you, but something a little more superficial and dispensable.
 * Expertise is good, in its place - but it's not good for it to be colored by other things, such as opinion, snide arrogance and group bullying, all of which I have experienced personally on first virtual acqaintance with this online demagogue.--79.78.40.2 (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How very nice. An anonymous person attacks both me and John Cowan! Thanks, IP! (What else could one say?) -- Evertype·✆ 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Point one: the anonymity was not my choice, but the by-product of a previous spate of group bullying in an entirely unrelated subject, with entirely different (but in some ways similar) protagonists; this kind of thing is endemic, perhaps especially online. But anonymity rather suits me, for the time being, preventing you, as it does, from reaching for the tired comfort of a repetition of the previous (and in my view, impertinent) put-downs. You and John Cowan (among less distinguished others) have, in the past, used the security of your status and mutual support to pour scorn on those less fortunate, in those respects, than yourselves; so you can scarcely complain about anonymous home truths.
 * Nonsense. Nothing prevents you from saying "My name is John Adams" (or whatever your name is). You're just having a rant about some perceived slight, blaming either me, or John Cowan, or both of us for. Very professional of you. -- Evertype✆ 02:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also rather question whether I really am all that anonymous, suspecting, as I do, that I am the only person on this planet qualified and inclined to stand up to you (prove me wrong, someone, please).--79.78.40.2 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not a person. You're an anonymous IP. Not sure how that makes you either uniquely qualified or qualified at all to "stand up to me". I suppose if I have anonymous enemies I must be doing something right. Isn't that the cliché? -- Evertype·✆ 02:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael (among others) is clearly an avid reader of this page, so let me try to make the position clearer, by reference to a comparison with astronomy. It is well established that non-academic amateurs can make a significant contribution to that field: when an amateur astronomer sights a celestial object, nobody screams, 'That can't possibly be right - he hasn't even got a degree in the subject!' But it wasn't always so, and younger sciences like psychology and linguistics often show signs of that very immaturity which once dogged astronomy, resulting, for example, in its 'realities' being determined by theological dogma. It is therefore a very bad, self-destructive strategy to pooh-pooh the contribution of amateurs, in young sciences, in the way Michael Everson and his colleagues have, with me, on occasion.--79.78.40.2 (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pish. I monitor the page. That does not mean I am an "avid reader" of it. Evidently you're some sort of amateur. Perhaps you're one of those who came to me and asked if such-and-such a photo from North America was an ogham inscription. If you did, I'd've answered you with a no. Arrogance? No. Informed opinion. People like John and I offer our (expert) opinions when people ask us. It's peculiar to think that people might whine about it when we don't say what they want us to say. -- Evertype·✆ 02:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael: let us suppose I am 'some sort of amateur' (not that I see that as diminishing me, especially in the context of Wikipedia, as I have already indicated). Are interjections like 'Nonsense,' 'Pish' and 'You're not a person' exemplary of discourse between credible equals? I.e., would an unknown amateur get away with addressing you in that fashion, however much you deserved it? => Another abuse of status. Q.E.D.--79.78.40.2 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Listen up, you. You're attacking me (and John Cowan), two individuals, whilst hiding behind an anonymous IP. You're not, therefore, "a credible equal". You could only approach equality if you divulged your identity, and whether your concerns are credible would then remain to be seen. You've accused John and me of dismissing something you might have said to us at some time, yet neither of us could address that because you're too cowardly to tell us who you are and what offence it is that you allege we caused. "Pish" sums up my interest in being subject to such trollish abuse and accusation. And off-hand, I can't think of anyone who has any "status" being interested in the views of anonymous name-callers. -- Evertype·✆ 18:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your're attaching a lot of importance to my 'anonymity,' while (deliberately? crassly?) overlooking the stated explanation behind it. This is as fatuous as calling insurrectionists 'cowardly' for concealing their faces, or indeed anyone who wears body armour.--79.78.40.2 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is arguably a similarity between Michael Everson and World Wide Web godfather Sir Tim Berners-Lee, in that there is an extreme of achievement so conspicuous that it inevitably, perhaps, brings with it an equally conspicuous-if-you-look-for-it but overlooked downside. By renouncing patent rights, Berners-Lee rapidly ushered in a new, liberating virtual universe for millions, but how can we entirely absolve him of that Pandora's box of half-baked technologies and online beheadings that came with it? And while Everson brings similar liberties, on a smaller scale, to minority linguistic communities, were some such communities not overlooked and rejected in the process, while others may have used it for ill ends? One suspects that Michael Everson wouldn't necessarily know, or want to report on that, being, like Berners-Lee, a designer on far too grand a scale for such 'tangenital considerations.'
 * Having said which, surely nobody deserves the appellation of 'B-Class' or 'Low-importance Celt' (see footer) - it would surely be better to hide oneself under a rock or whatever?--79.78.40.2 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation tags
I can't see why User E557 has decided to put citation tags in the first paragraph (where there are two citations) or on the bio section. I think the tags ought to be removed. -- Evertype·✆ 15:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * E557 has not given any specifics or responded to the suggestion that the citation tags should be removed. I'll remove them. -- Evertype·✆ 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see what kind of citations are expected for the Life section. Am I to scan in my birth cert or something? -- Evertype·✆ 11:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was assuming providing references for the statements was preferable in the long run and might prevent unwanted alterations. This is good practice in an encyclopedia. I will leave it to other editors to react or not.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, you can cite your own website. WP:SELFPUB allows it for limited information about yourself. Gigs (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My website is already cited at the bottom of the article. -- Evertype·✆ 15:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Structuring the list of scripts
I agree that the list of encoded script is difficult to read, but I think it is an important part of this article, since it's the main reason Michael Everson is known. If order to keep a NPOV in the script organization, I have structured the list according to the order of presentation in the Unicode 5.2 book, following the division between chapter and subsection. The items of the list are exactly the ones from the list, but with "unicode orthography" (e.g. Meetei Mayek and not Meiteti Mayek). I think this strict adherence to Unicode is neutral because the subject is precisely the unicode encoding of those scripts. Here comes the list. What do you think ? Frédéric Grosshans (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * European Alphabetic Scripts
 * Coptic
 * Glagolitic
 * Georgian
 * Middle Eastern Scripts
 * Samaritan
 * Thaana
 * South Asian Scripts
 * Sinhala
 * Tibetan
 * Lepcha
 * Limbu
 * Saurashtra
 * Meetei Mayek
 * Ol Chiki
 * Southeast Asian Scripts
 * Myanmar
 * Khmer
 * Tai Le
 * New Tai Lue
 * Tai Tham
 * Kayah Li
 * Cham
 * Philippine Scripts
 * Tagalog
 * Hanunóo
 * Buhid
 * Tagbanwa
 * Buginese
 * Balinese
 * Javanese
 * Rejang
 * Sundanese
 * East Asian Scripts
 * Yi
 * Additional Modern Scripts
 * Ethiopic
 * Mongolian
 * Osmanya
 * N’Ko
 * Vai
 * Bamum
 * Cherokee
 * Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics
 * Deseret
 * Shavian
 * Ancient and Historic Scripts
 * Ogham
 * Old Italic
 * Runic
 * Gothic
 * Old Turkic
 * Linear B
 * Cypriot Syllabary
 * Ancient Anatolian Alphabets
 * Lycian
 * Carian
 * Lydian
 * Old South Arabian
 * Phoenician
 * Imperial Aramaic
 * Inscriptional Parthian and Inscriptional Pahlavi
 * Avestan
 * Ugaritic
 * Old Persian
 * Sumero-Akkadian
 * Egyptian Hieroglyphs
 * Symbols
 * Miscellaneous Symbols and Dingbats
 * Phaïstos disc symbols
 * Braille
 * If you ask me (and you may not be asking me), I think it's awful. This list doesn't need to be A Wikipedia List. There are places in the encyclopaedia where such lists reside. But this part of this article isn't served by being some sort of taxonomic list, is it? It seems to me that I worked on encoding a whole log ot of scripts, not on their taxonomic relation to one another. The alphabetic paragraph, in my view, is sufficient. -- Evertype·✆ 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think the paragraph version is quite adequate (readers who want to read it closely can probably copy it into another file).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)