![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Note: Many of these notable people should have either said or declared their contributions (and membership) on their own web pages or other media sources. If there is reasonable doubt that these people are hoaxes, please remove them from this article.
Note: Could people please (if you have spare time) spend some time putting the wikipedian-bio template on the talk pages of the articles? Nippoo 00:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I've left gaps where it wasn't immediately obvious which user the person was, and I couldn't be bothered to spend time working it out with no guarantee that they actually were registered. Some of these people could hardly be described as Wikipedians, having done little editing except for their own articles, which is not very different from an anonymous editor writing an autobiographical entry, which happens all the time. I have removed some of those who only edited their own articles and VfDs, some are borderline. Maybe we ought to have another page listing famous people known or believed to have edited or created their own articles. Quite a few in this list are actually on VfD at the time of writing, several more are autobiographical and have narrowly survived, and there are a few for which a good case could be made for their deletion. — Trilobite ( Talk) 23:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There have been people showing up here claiming (unsubstantiatedly) to be celebrities. For instance, at least two alleged Hilary Duffs have appeared. What standard of proof is needed that somebody is in fact whom they claim to be? *Dan* 01:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians with article is currently listed on CfD. At present time, consensus is heavily leaning towards the deletion of the category. There is support to retain the information within this already existing page, so I'm going to go ahead and list the articles from that category that aren't already on this page. Since I don't know the user names that go along with these articles, I'm just going to list them here on the talk page. Someone who wants to can do whatever detective work is necessary to track down the users can do so.
-- Azkar 18:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Bradfitz's only edit was to create a user page, and StephTheGeek only edited because her article was on VfD. Neither should even be on the list. I put Ryan Kavalsky on VfD as a vanity page. -- Michael Snow 18:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
In the interests of full disclosure, I'm inherently biased since I was, at some point, included in the category being discussed here.
That said, as objectively as I can, I feel it to be a relevant category -- to some. For me, it's allowed me to better understand the Wikipedia community, and get a feel for who else from various niches of the net that I am interested in have ended up on Wikipedia.
But is it of interest to the casual user, the average surfer popping in for a single article? I don't think so, nor should it be presented as such. But it *is* of strong interest to Wikipedia editors, and others involved in Wikipedia community. The category is a reminder that, while an encyclopedia is often a historical text, the people we write about are real, have opinions, have presence, *exist*.
I'm pleased as punch that I have an article, and that Wikipedians have been kind enough to maintain it over the years. But quite apart from serving as a reference useful to anyone bored enough to care about my life and times, it should serve as a relic of the fact that history is living, real, and happening all around us.
Frank Herbert's "Dune" series put the sentiment well in noting " ... all things a man can do are mine. Any act of mine may do it." The gap between watching history and contributing to history is smaller than we often believe.
The people you write about are real. Reminders of this are not uncalled for. I support the existence of some ongoing incarnation of this category.
Adrian 04:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Richard Stallman has apparently made a few edits under the IP address 128.30.16.48, including edits to his own article (includes the comment "<!-- In any case, it is true. -- rms. -->") and other edits to geeky stuff. The IP address resolves to aarau.csail.mit.edu. TheCoffee 17:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
What is happening here. Is this Jtdirl or not? SqueakBox 22:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
This internal listing serves many purpose. One of them is to apply the scarlet letter "A", for "autobiographer". (Or potential autobiographer.) The fact that some editors have only contributed to their own biographies is an excellent reason to put them on this list. Really, the more important list would be "Wikipedians who have edited their own articles", but that is too long for a title. An editor's desire for privacy is understandable and should be treated seriously, unless it is accompanied by self-promotion. - Willmcw 09:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
-- bodnotbod 09:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Who are these people? The only name from the list I can recognise is Roger Ebert, the film critic. I know this is all my own ignorance, but maybe a mention next to the names of what they do. Are they mostly computer people?
I noticed that White Dawg is on the list of Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Is there any credible evidence which corroborates that User:BrowardPlaya is indeed White Dawg, and not an over over-obsessed fan? Hall Monitor 22:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Impressive list of Jack Sarfatti accounts. This re-raises in my mind the issue of the standard for inclusion on this page: does alleged, or does widely believed, cut it? See above regarding James Duffy/Jtdirl, for example. I've just stumbled across another such case, this one in the even more marked "only edits topics related to the subject in question, but denies it anyway" category, and not for the first time, either. Alai 23:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there any chance you might stop claiming that I am Jim Duffy. It is getting tedious at this stage. FearÉIREANN 04:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC) (Thom Cadden)
This is an interesting question of a principle, I think. Just what is being claimed by listing WP users here? Here's another example: Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, by consensus of other editors, engaged in aggressive autobiography warring, both as User:Gadugi and as a variety of sockpuppet and anon IPs. However, some of these accounts posted claims that they were not Merkey, but rather a "friend", "his wife", "his lawyer", "a disinterested observer", etc. But the Gadugi account is a bit special: first that account posted multiple comments stating authority as being Merkey; but later the account posted denials of being Merkey, once the authority claim failed to carry weight.
So we have several levels here:
So which of these types of accounts should be listed in WPians w/ articles? (and presumably in the associated categories). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly the point I was trying to get at. One might also factor in "accusations" of the identity of an editor made by others: I've seen several instances of this, especially where a dispute from other web forums spill over onto Wikipedia. In such instances, participants have seem to have/think they have "history" with each other, without being certain of their actual identities, much less having concrete "proof". Alai 06:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Regarding this, excuse me? Do not give "email me" as a reason for a page edit. — goethean ॐ 16:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Some notable editors with fixed IP addresses have been open about their identity. For whatever reason, they either have not registered, or frequently edit without logging in. I believe that including them on this list has not been controversial until now. An editor strongly objects to the practice at Talk:Kevin B. MacDonald. His reasons include the possibility that the IP may be used by other users. Editors with input should visit that talk page. (or maybe we should move the discussion here?) Thanks, - Willmcw 02:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Please direct discussion of use of the category to Category talk:Notable Wikipedians.
I saw an annotation a couple places, and added it elsewhere. I think that Wikipedians who have only edited their own (auto)biography ought to be noted. This is a somewhat different class of editors than those who widely participate in WP, and happen to have articles.
I'm hoping in association with this to somehow structure Category:Notable Wikipedians to make a similar distinction. Perhaps something like a subcat Category:Wikipedian autobiography. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Good idea. It might also be interesting to note who has contributed to their own article and who hasn't, SqueakBox 18:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that everyone on this list should go throgh a AfD on a regular basis (every six months?) and that anyone trying to get on the list should go throgh an AfD before gettting on. A percentage could be AfD'ed each week. To avoid a long list of "Keep" responses, certain credentials could keep some Wikipedians from the AfD process:
There should also be some criteria to be taken off the list, someday:
Feedback? -- Fplay 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Let us keep the one-line description not wikified. It is easier to read and causes people to visit and review the person's page if they are interested. -- Fplay 18:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Why do so many of these so called notable wikipedians only edit their own page? Quite a farce.
In the end, it is just a handy little list, the kind of thing that Wikipedia produces a lot of. -- Fplay 21:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I ended up doing many many edits and contributions to Wikipedia simply because someone had written about me (for my online writing activities) and I had found the article on a Google search. -- Cjmarsicano 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Is User:Crissycums really Crissy Cums? If so, why does she talk about herself in third person? I can't see anything that speaks for these two being the same persons, and will therefore remove the entry. / skagedal [talk] 13:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Primarily has made edits to her biography, and her comics.
Um...am I crazy, or do I have a ton of edits on Texas State Highways, Suzanne Vega, Wrestling, Texas and Star Trek? I'm gonna start taking this stuff personal if it keeps up. :) Jenn Dolari 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm probably going to get clobbered for suggesting this, but should we add the Gay Nigger Association of America and some of the users associated with the group? Or are we focussed solely on individuals? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Folks: I want to re-emphasize that we should keep the comment to one line. No lengthy psychological profiles on the person as a Wikipedian, please. It just leads to grudes. -- Pinktulip 08:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to quickly know if the users are active or not. Let me define active as "made an edit in the last two months". I will be marking such users as "not active". Let me comment that for active users, it is not appropriate to characterize them based on non-notable incidents. -- Pinktulip 08:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that Magnus Manske and Matthew McLauchlin were obliterated by being turned into redirects, rather than the more honest AfD. I have reverted those changes. Please keep an eye of this trend. -- Pinktulip 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Let us keep those one-liners down to one line. No "Wikipedian usage" profiles please. The only "Wikipedian status" info one the one-liners should be if they person has made no edits in over two months, in which case we mark them as "Not active". Anything less strict will just lead to bloat and a competition for the most elaborate bio-line. It is NOT helpful to mark people as having edited their articles because two minutes later, someone else could do a massive rewrite or an AfD and then it just does not matter. If they only ever worked on the own article, TOUGH! Wait for two months (yes, that is longer than a television commericial, but find the maturity to do so) and then, if appropriate, mark them as "Not active". -- Pinktulip 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
NOW do you see what ya did? Somebody added in early January on Jenn Dolari:
That petty let-us-spy-them stuff is DESTRUCTIVE. Guess what? Jenn has given us the boot! Let me admit: In my ignorance, I put the AfD on her article (I put in my comment "nothing personal") in mid-December, but it survived. Anyway, She is bitter and out of Wikipedia. For now on folks: NOTHING MORE THAN A CONCISE CONSTRUCTIVE ONE-LINER PLEASE! -- 71.141.243.30 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Adam Powell (co-creator of Neopets) appears to have edited his own and Donna Williams' articles from account user:Borovan2000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.84.243.169 ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 22 February 2006.
I'm not sure if this is the place to ask, but, what are the guidlines for making user articles? I was planing on making 1, but I'm not sure wether there are any rules about it, just wondering, - Jedi of redwall
Like some others, i was aware for quite a few months that there was a Wiki page about me. After a while, it began to bug me that it listed only my writing and editing in one genre (comic books) and made no mention of my writing on other topics. And the page said "Edit This Page" -- so i did.
There was no notice to the effect that "You will be considered an auto-biogapher and thus a Suspect Person if you edit this page" -- so i stumbled in.
And then i did a quick ckeck of other wiki pages that cited my books either as references or external links -- and i found some errors / overlooked aspects / whatever in those articles ... so i edited those pages too.
And then -- because i felt i was now a "member" -- i started using WP as a source for information, and whenever i found errors, or stubs, or things that could be improved, i weighed in... and it was fun, until someone added a "Notable Wikipedians" tag to my page.
I checked on the WP definition of "Notable Wikipedian" -- and found it is in essence, a warning -- but it came too late! I had *already* edited my own page.
So, if there really is an anti-self-editing policy, it should be made verbally clear BEFORE people are allowed to edit their own pages -- because oherwise it is gonna happen all the time, espcially when the bio subjects are writers.
As for myself, i think most of us are mature enough to correct or update a CV for ourselves and that the whole thing is a non-issue. Also, in my opinion, maintaining a list of Wikipedians with bio pages does not help eliminate vanity pages -- because most people who create those are using socks or anonymity, anyway.
Cordially,
Catherineyronwode 03:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)