"Hi. I appreciate your current efforts to add to the Tony Hendra article. Those efforts will be more successful if you do the following:

 Review the following policy pages: Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.
 Explain the changes you're making in a brief form in the ""Edit Summary"" box you see in the edit form, just above the ""Save Page"" button, or in more detail on the Talk:Tony_Hendra page.

The approach you've taken so far (adding lots of information to the top of the article, then lots of blank space to force the original content way down the page) is problematic, because it represents an apparent effort to ""hide"" some of the information on the page. Wikipedia doesn't normally work that way.

Assuming you actually are Tony Hendra, I can understand your concerns with some of the current material in the article. The best way to move the Tony Hendra article in the direction you appear to want to move it would be to discuss the problems you have with the article on the Talk:Tony_Hendra page. For myself, I'd be happy to use some of the information you've been adding to flesh out the non-controversial parts of the article (though I would probably want to de-hype it a little to satisfy the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policy).

The material on the controversy with Jessica Hendra is more problematic. That controversy exists, and a case could be made that for good or ill it has come to be a significant part of your public notability. To the extent that's true, removing it from the article would be contrary to the interests of Wikipedia's readers, who expect to find relevant biographical information in a biographical article.

You might very well see the matter differently, and if so, you have every right to express that point of view, and to work with other editors to try to improve the article. To the extent we can arrive at some sort of an editorial consensus, though, it will help that improvement process work more smoothly. Discussing your concerns on the Talk:Tony_Hendra page would be a good way to work toward such a conensus.

Thanks.  "