Talk:Michael Everson

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)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. "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.
4. 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)

Michael Everson COI/ownership RFC

Template:RFCbio 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)--