The problem is one of self-advertisement, a perennial problem with Wikipedia. As it is, there is a constant flow of self-aggrandizement by publicity hogs who just want to see themselves listed as the hottest of hot patooties in whatever section of the universe they infest. As a result, more moderate Wiki editors than SlimVirgin have long since set up principles of which you have run afoul: 1) articles about a person should not be written by that person or their close friends and associates, not should articles about a project be written by principals in said project 2) as a rule, anything published or edited by the subject of the article is considered suspect as a source of information and not a valuable measure of notability or significance

The Wikipedia style is not in harmony with your goals here. Literary characterization, however much you or I might relish it, is part of the deprecated Original Research (a Wiki-NoNo). The nominal collective goal of the Wiki project, for better or worse, is encyclopedic material, presented in a neutral and non-judgmental style, made up of information extracted from previously published works and backed by cites from neutral, preferably peer-reviewed, sources.

These things can be seductive timewasters, ain'a? I come out as Brunner, which suits me fine (outside of our respective religious opinions, anyway). I should only be so good a writer!

I edit Wikipedia and add cites to printed materials all the time. I think you just ran into some morons.

Such a delightful change from the Darrell Sweets of the fantasy universe.

Damn! 92 is too young. Express my sympathies to David (though I doubt he remembers me).