Adult singles dating tupelo mississippi adult dating laketon texas

That said, there was little in the way of third party sources to discuss the issue.

This was despite the MOS for citations, which point out that strict citation is only necessary for disputed points.

After my father died, this “Bi” harbored an obsession to destroy my father, his works, credibility, reputation and legacy.

“Bi” proliferated across the web the idea that Neo-Tech Mediation Page: Requests_for_mediation/Frank_R._Wallace After browsing through those four Talk pages (four links directly above), remember that Jimmy Wales saw all this yet seemed blind to the obvious: a person obsessed with destroying someone featured on Wikipedia, stalking his page and finding excuses to remove positive or even neutral remarks, can cause a much greater negative force at work than a positive or neutral force.

After reading the comments on my father’s Talk page (as shown above), you can see that the value of Wikipedia was diminished by the fanatical efforts of “Bi”.

Here is another reason, beyond his obsession, that “Bi” had the upper hand in those edit wars: an idea system such as Neo-Tech, only attack articles.

So there are no articles, other than the attack articles.

adult singles dating tupelo mississippi-29adult singles dating tupelo mississippi-51

He even planted a non sequitur by citing a person who went to prison, and he dishonestly used it as a reference for one of IMA’s dba’s (and this citation is a non-Internet reference so the reader cannot link to the article and discover the dishonest non sequitur).

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.

But he missed the fundamental point: that even with the rigorous debate on my father’s and Neo-Tech as evidenced today, years later, by the comments on my father’s Talk page Frank_R._Wallace .

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.

Neo-Tech from the early Internet days by going to https://groups.google.com/forum/#! Wallace’s Neo-Tech philosophy, which grew out of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Wales an email several years ago, after my father died, informing him that a Wikipedia editor who went by the name of “Bi” was destroying my father’s Wikipedia page, Wales called me.