Citations are supposed to be used for questionable material.
But “Bi” relentlessly removed even the most obvious, non-questionable material using his weapon of “no third-party sourcing.” He knew that the media and bloggers (he himself was a blogger) want nothing to do with Neo-Tech: Wikipedia on Anarky: Alan Grant interview: page More on Anarky More Grant: Now, to demonstrate the establishment’s dislike for Neo-Tech In the years that followed the creation of Anarky, both Norm Breyfogle and Alan Grant experienced changes in their personal and professional lives which they attributed to that collaboration.
Well, those published attacks make it too easy for those out to discredit the idea system and its creator to overwhelm those Wikipedia articles with negativity using Wikipedia’s sacred policy of third-party sourcing and citations — Wikipedia’s Holy Grail: third-party sourcing from published sources…yes, articles written by the very journalists and bloggers who deeply dislike Neo-Tech too easily remove legitimate representation of the idea system by calling it “too much original material” as evidenced today, years later, on my father’s Talk page, Frank_R._Wallace, a section from the Talk page shown below: You don’t need third party references for this article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) , 22 July 2010 (UTC) Anonymous “Bi” and occasional ally (he used sock puppets) overwhelmed the edit wars by easily, repeatedly stating there are no third-party sources supporting original material or obvious facts.
During this period, Breyfogle came to suspect that the treatment each man, and Anarky, had received from their former employer was suspect. I see it in the treatment from Wikipedia; I see it in the treatment toward Alan Grant from DC Comics; I see it in the treatment from mainstream media and the establishment.
forum/alt.neo-tech and keying in the search bar “Jimmy Wales” (and you will get another set of his posts when you key in “Jimbo”). I explained that someone with a strong stalker-like obsession can destroy a person’s Wikipedia page, and that my father’s Wikipedia page and the Neo-Tech page and saw nothing wrong, saying he saw an open debate.
Wikipedia: Verifiability says “Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves…” Source#Sources So you can use books by Wallace, published by Wallace, in an article about Wallace to describe his views and philosophy.
Dramatizer (talk) , 5 March 2010 (UTC)You could do that, but within minutes, yes, minutes, some Asperger’s riddled nitwit would spring into action and edit it out, calling it “original research.” Forty-four minutes to Wapner….
But the top man, Jimmy Wales, saw no problem in letting the fanatic “Bi” rage on.
Again, even the anti-business blog saw the “Bi” obsession to destroy Neo-Tech and Wallace despite the facts, and therefore made the remarkable move of deleting the entire thread of “Bi” against us. Wikipedia resists relatives, friends, and employees from contributing to an article out of concern that the subject would be favored, yet Wales saw no problem with a negative force so strong that it overwhelmed the Neo-Tech and Frank R. When I articulated this shortcoming to Jimmy Wales, he simply shrugged it off indicating that others can debate against the negative.
Below I copy/pasted from my father’s Wikipedia Talk page at the time of this article: is.