Wikipedia talk:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stuff 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gaps 

message: 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)
replies: text: Depends on the celebrity. In Hilary Duff's case, one might ask for confirmation via their fansites or something (though I'd expect they'd just deny it without checking). As noted below, though, RMS just showed up and started editing his own article, though I'm inclined to believe it's actually him... *shrug* I heard someone from Destiny's Child (I think it was) showed up on DALnet once and started saying it was whoever it was, and nobody believed her (this was a while back). --Jack (Cuervo) 21:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Celebrities 

message: :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.
*Arnold Perey
*Brad Fitzpatrick
*Markus Kuhn
*Ryan Lackey
*Ryan Kavalsky
*StephTheGeek
--Azkar 18:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[:Category:Wikipedians with article]] 

message: 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 "") and other edits to geeky stuff. The IP address resolves to aarau.csail.mit.edu. TheCoffee 17:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Stallman 

message: 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?
:Yes. These aren't exactly A-list celebrities, although there are a few geeky celebrities - Alan Cox, Mike Godwin (of Godwin's law),  Eric S Raymond, and Richard Stallman. →Raul654 06:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who?

message: 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)
thread_title: Is White Dawg a Wikipedian?

message: 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)
replies: text: I notice that Jim Duffy is back from the list.  Meanwhile, alleged Duffy, User:Jtdirl is happily back editting, and minor-edit-no-summary-removing  from the article in question.  It seems that this one will run and run, (at least) until such time as there's a more clearly established criterion for inclusion in this list, and that category.  Anyone care to comment, especially those including/excluding such cases?  Alai 04:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you mean me, I wouldn't know (either of) you from Adam (much less each other).  However, the circumstantial evidence seems fairly compelling, and I think the general principle of "suspected autobiography" is worth addressing, if there's any point in having this list at all.  If that's a generic "you";  well, much the same would apply, except to note that if several editors are adding these tags and list entries (not me, of late), it might be better to address the underlying issue, rather than individual appeals to tedium.  Alai 05:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Sarfatti, and burden of proof/balance of probability 

message: 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:
# Accounts that always claim to be "Notable Person"
# Accounts that sometimes claim to be Notable Person, but other times deny it
# Accounts that never claim an outside identity, but that we have plausible reason to think are Notable Person
# Accounts that always claim not to be Notable Person, but we don't really believe them
# Accounts that seem clearly not to be Notable Person at all
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)
thread_title:  Levels of inclusion 

message: Regarding this, excuse me? Do not give "email me" as a reason for a page edit. — goethean ॐ 16:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "email me" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Note that my objection was to :Category:Notable Wikipedians.  I have not made any comment about inclusion on this list before now (though on reflection, I think a similar issue may exist). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IP addresses

message: 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)
thread_title:  Let's indicate exclusive autobiographers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keep the one-liners de-wikified 

message: Why do so many of these so called notable wikipedians only edit their own page? Quite a farce.
: That is a legitimate criticism.  I think the a reason that nothing has been done about it is that the problem has not yet gotten out of hand (many notable people registering and only to write/start their own page).   Maybe most other notable people who do not register with Wikipedia are too busy with their careers or something.
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)
thread_title: notable wikipedians?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crissy Cums 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jenn Dolari 

message: 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)
replies: text: What is the point?  If you feel the need to add "member of GNAA" to individuals, go ahead and see if anyone objects. -- Pinktulip 08:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNAA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pscho profiles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Activity 

message: 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)
replies: text: Primarily has made edits to her biography, and her comics.
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)
thread_title:  A &thorn;-y issue... 

message: 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
::The main guideline is one word - "Don't". If you must, please see Wikipedia:autobiography and Wikipedia:vanity. -Will Beback 00:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making my article