Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Stuff

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)

Gaps

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)

Alleged Celebrities

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)

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)

From Category:Wikipedians with article

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)

Can I trouble someone to update my entry here to reflect that I'm engaged in journalism these days? It doesn't seem appropriate to have it depicting me as a career criminal. Mentioning both would be most accurate. I'd do it myself, but it'd feel unseemly. Thoughts?
Adrian Lamo 09:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say just go ahead and do it, no body else knows the facts as you; others edit likewise on their own pages. If we don't like the result, we'll just mock you (without breaking WP:Civility of course.) GangofOne 09:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Figured I'd ask, as it's not in the best taste to edit content involving oneself. It's not original research though, as it's been cited elsewhere. On a long enough wiki-timeline, the entry will become self correcting, eventually approaching sentience and perfection, ultimately evolving into a form of pure energy, and probably beating me at chess. Or so the eventualistic model of wikivolution would suggest :)
Adrian Lamo 19:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

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)

Jim Duffy

What is happening here. Is this Jtdirl or not? SqueakBox 22:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have no direct knowledge, but this strikes me as a self-deletion, rising to a level somewhat short of a denial. Certainly the equation has appeared many times: it's been asserted flat-out[1], acknowledged [2], glossed via the equation J.T.D. = Jim T. Duffy[3], and similarly as STÓD = S(éamus) T. Ó D(ubhthaigh), which would be the same name in Irish [4]. Of course, this may simply make him a Jim Duffy, not necessarily that one. As he started, and has been pretty active in editing (what's been claimed to be) his own article, however, I'm inclined to say he should be re-instated, unless we're going to either require a very high standard of proof for these equations, or take people's preference for semi-anonymity on board. (Either of which isn't necessarily infeasible, I'd just prefer to make the basis for this list a little more explicit.) Or indeed, should we be counting "non-current" wikipedians at all? Alai 01:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Jtdirl has never claimed to be Jim Duffy. A user called Skyring began to stalk him, following him all over Wikipedia, making changes to his edits, and constantly calling him "Jim" in his comments on the talk page. Skyring also had his own blog, which he updated frequently, pouring ridicule upon Jtdirl. The matter went to arbitration, and Skyring was banned for a year. He then began to create sockpuppet accounts, to continue his stalking of Jtdirl. He tried to insert into the article about Jim Duffy that Jim Duffy was editing Wikipedia under the username Jtdirl, and Jtdirl took this out. This happened a few times, I think. Skyring even sent private e-mails to Wikipedians, through the "e-mail this user" facility, telling them that Jtdirl was Jim Duffy.
I have no idea whether or not Jtdirl is Jim Duffy; nor do I care. If he deliberately chose a username to register under, (as you seem to have done, Alai,) then I feel very strongly that we should respect his wish for anonymity. Jim and Duffy are both quite common names, and we shouldn't insert claims that are based on speculation, no matter how plausible they seem. Jtdirl left Wikipedia because of the harrassment, and the intrusion on his privacy. Let's not add to it. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
That was one way of getting a reply to my question, I suppose. The first three sentences of this project page:
This internal listing serves multiple purposes. One of them is to highlight the notable people who contribute to the project. Another is to notify the community that these Wikipedians are potential autobiographers, with the risks that entails for NPOV in articles relating to them and their work.
If Jtdirl wished the anonymity you say he wishes and is entitled to, then was it prudent, or indeed consistent, of him to state himself to be "Jim Duffy" on an open and publicly-archived mailing list? (See above link, wherein someone does claim to be User:Jtdirl, and in the same breath, Jim Duffy)? To start an article on Jim Duffy (author)? (And subsequently be involved in editing it heavily, disputes over same, and indeed himself page-protecting that article.) And to fail to clarify the situation one way or another? If they're not one and the same, we either have one Jim Duffy with a strong interest in another Jim Duffy, with very similar background and interests ("Dublin-based 30-something writer, columnist and academic"); or, we have someone publicly misrepresenting their real name in accepting nomination for wikipedia adminship, then using the same account and by-line on several other occasions, and then subsequently claiming never to have made such an equation -- without actually stating that it's untrue.
The above may be slightly short of mathematical proof, but it's well to the north of "speculation", and doesn't speak to the issue of why such clear conflicts of interest should remain undocumented. Having done nothing in any sense analogous myself, I don't personally feel I'm exactly being monstrously hypocritical in having "chosen a username". (For anyone that cares enough to do a bit of digging, I'm pretty sure there's enough information on my user page to work out my identity (and otherwise, besides), and my "email link" is non-pseudonymous, for the record. In the unlikely event of someone deciding I'm "notable" (and it certainly won't be me) you can surely add this account to this list.) If he's no longer here, then listing his disused account is hardly going to "add to the harrassment", if it could have in any event have been said to be likely to have done so.
Rather than having ad hoc deletions of people invoking special pleading, I'd rather establish what the criteria for inclusion on this list actually are, and to apply them consistently. Given that potential -- much less actual -- autobiography is expressly one of the reasons for its existence, it would rather defeat the purpose for autobiographers to have too ready an opt-out. I'm not going to put him back immediately, but I would like to see some discussion, and hopefully even consensus, as to the exact scope of this page. Alai 01:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Purpose

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)

  • In that case I think the text at the start of the list needs to change. It currently says:
This page was created to list people notable enough for Wikipedia articles who are also Wikipedia editors, or have been in the past. It replaces Category:Wikipedians with article which had the disadvantage of being self-referential and not indicating the usernames of those listed.
  • I propose:
This internal listing serves many purposes (note: somewhere, please outline what these are). One of them is to warn that the contributor is an "autobiographer" (or potential autobiographer) with the risks that entails for NPOV in articles relating to them and their work. The fact that some editors have only contributed to their own biographies is an excellent reason to put them on this list.
It lists people who have a Wikipedia article about them and who have also made one or more edits to Wikipedia. It replaces Category:Wikipedians with article which had the disadvantage of being self-referential and not indicating the usernames of those listed.

--bodnotbod 09:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your proposal is a bit direct, but it isn't wrong either. The first statement is entirely accurate too. It only takes one edit to become a Wikipedian. Or is there some other standard? If we list one purpose then we should list others too, such as showcasing prominent contributors, like Ebert. -Willmcw 09:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've edited the header text to accurately introduce the list. Please add the other purposes for the list to it and soften if you really must ;o) --bodnotbod 10:58, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Who?

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)

Is White Dawg a Wikipedian?

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)

Jack Sarfatti, and burden of proof/balance of probability

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)

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 {{Notable Wikipedian|Jtdirl}} 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)

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)

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)

Levels of inclusion

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:

  1. Accounts that always claim to be "Notable Person"
  2. Accounts that sometimes claim to be Notable Person, but other times deny it
  3. Accounts that never claim an outside identity, but that we have plausible reason to think are Notable Person
  4. Accounts that always claim not to be Notable Person, but we don't really believe them
  5. 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)

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)

"email me"

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

IP addresses

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)

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)

Please direct discussion of use of the category to Category talk:Notable Wikipedians.

Let's indicate exclusive autobiographers

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)


AfD rotations

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:

  • Nobel Prize winners (we do not have any we know of, and it is Betsy Devine's husband who has one, but that does not count)
  • Fields Medal winners
  • Other world-class achievement honors
  • A-list celebrities and politicians (we do not have any we know of)
  • Wikimedia board members
  • NNDB entry, maybe IMDb and IBDb also?
  • Cover of Time magazine
  • etc.

There should also be some criteria to be taken off the list, someday:

  • Long period of no activity via registered account or via mass media (Roger Ebert, for instance: it has been over a yera now, but he has cited Wikipeida on other media.)
  • Public disavowal of Wikipedia involvement

Feedback? -- Fplay 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems needless and unnecessary to me. It's a page in the Wikipedia namesapce so it doesn't attract much attention. The fact that someone appears on this list should have no bearing on whether their article in the article namespace is merited or not. Also, rather than removing people from the list, I'll just create an inactive section, which is the standard for most lists in the Wikipedia namespace. Hiding talk 20:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, looking at it again it seems clear that the list should remain as is and no-one should be removed, that's part of the defining feature of the list. I think this list should stay exactly as it is, with anyone who edits and has an article added to it. Hiding talk 20:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Those suggestions are ridiculously imbalanced. Any who acts in anything broadcast or screened, even if it's an indie flick, can get on IMDb, making every actor notable. On the other hand, what if Tookie Williams had edited? He wasn't an A-lister, and he didn't win the Nobel Prize (thank goodness) despite being nominated. What about Hazel McCallion, mayor of Mississauga in Canada (sixth largest city in the country) since 1978. She hasn't qualified by your standards. -- user:zanimum

Keep the one-liners de-wikified

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)

notable wikipedians?

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)

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)

Crissy Cums

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)

Jenn Dolari

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)

GNAA

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)

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)

Pscho profiles

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)

Activity

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)

Tricksters

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)

Please refrain from people calling "tricksters". see Wikipedia:no personal attacks.
The Magnus Manske page was merged using proper procedure, as outlined at Wikipedia:Merge#How_to_merge_pages. A proposal was made and a period of silence has elapsed as no one has objected to the merge proposal. The afd vote is irrelevant as the issue is not over deleting the article.
There was no reason given for merging the Matthew McLauchlin article, so that can stand unless there is a reason given and conensus is achieved on the talk page. --Jiang 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A þ-y issue...

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:

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)

Adam Powell

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.


Making my article

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)

Stumbling in, then staying

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)

I think the self-editing policy applies most strongly to the creation of new articles. The philosophy here is that if you are notable enough to have an article, sooner or later someone will write one anyway, and it is better to wait for that to happen "naturally", as it were, rather than trying to accelerate the process. Since your biography was started long before you took a personal interest in it, this is not a problem in your case (though it has happened before, and will probably happen again).
It is undoubtedly beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole if the subjects of certain biographies are aware of their articles, and take a moment to ensure that they are accurate. Provided changes are small, verifiable and noncontroversial, the subject might as well make the changes themselves, rather than going through the rigmarole of requesting that someone else do it. Personally, I feel that correcting errors and adding small amounts of information, in the way that you have done, is fine. More substantial contributions that significantly alter the tone of the article are another matter – for example, adding several paragraphs of completely new material. It is this sort of contribution that the policy seeks to prevent.
To summarize, if you think changes need to be made to your article in future, I would recommend seeking a second opinion, and possibly getting someone else to make the contribution for you. However, if you have made some small edits yourself, don't worry about it; the fact that editing you own article has persuaded you to make other contributions is a good thing in itself – Gurch 13:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notable_people_who_have_edited_Wikipedia/Archive_2&oldid=1248643158"