Evertype

For further information about me, see the article Michael Everson. Yes, I wrote the first version of that article, dated August 8, 2004. That's a long time ago now (July 20, 2006). Roozbeh had inserted my name in the Unicode article and a couple of months later I filled in the stub. I wasn't aware of the autobiography policy, but I didn't intend to write a "vanity" page. The article has been reviewed and edited by other people who appear to be satisfied by its verifiability, as well as to its neutrality. The article has also been vandalized by trolls, sometimes by people who are angry with me because of arguments we have on other topics elsewhere on the Wikipedia. Sometimes because some people just aren't very nice, and don't like people who aren't falsely modest about their work or achievements.

I don't believe that what some people believe is a ban on autobiographical editing actually makes a lot of sense. One of the edits I made to the list of scripts encoded on the article about me was to add Balinese script to the article when Balinese was accepted for encoding. Why? The work I do encoding scripts is why I'm meant to be "notable"; it's one of the things people want to know about. Would it be better to edit covertly, sockpuppeting or getting friends or colleagues to add a link like that? Apparently the second VfD on the article was caused by my deleting some nonsense about my having a beard and a moustache and being a Sagittarius. When I deleted the obvious vandalism I signed it "I'm a Capricorn ;-)". The edit was transparent, and made in good faith and with good humour.

I'm a member of the Wikipedian community, and I'd have deleted such nonsense from any biography. At the same time, I don't believe that any Wikipedian who has an article ignores it or its contents. In light of the viciousness with which I've been attacked on two occasions (for daring to notice that people consider me notable), I consider that I am obliged to keep an eye on it. Now, I don't mind criticism. I have my detractors. There's room for criticism of me in the article. But not, I should think, for abuse.

I have a point of view. Of course I do. So does everyone. But Wikipedia doesn't require that individual contributors have a neutral point of view. Rather, it tries to have articles which have a neutral point of view, by the synthesis and integration of the points of views of various contributors. The Wikipedia is a fascinating social experiment. I'm proud to be a part of it, and to try to make good edits. I'm not going to pretend that the article isn't there, though. I hope it will stay factual, and interesting, and useful to people.

"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. 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."

"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.

A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source."