Revision as of 09:02, 18 February 2007 editSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,293 edits →Notability?: -reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:26, 20 February 2007 edit undoBi (talk | contribs)1,056 edits →Notability?: reported on WP:ANINext edit → | ||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
:::::::::I also provided source which were books about poker saying that Wallace's poker book was a "seminal" work. It's a classic. That in itself is good enough as well. ] 07:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | :::::::::I also provided source which were books about poker saying that Wallace's poker book was a "seminal" work. It's a classic. That in itself is good enough as well. ] 07:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
(indent reset) Someone saying someone else wrote a "seminal" work doesn't in itself do it-that would do more to enhance the notability of the ''book'' then the ''author'', but in either case the person saying it would have to have some credentials as a reliable authority on such things. Also, what were those citations of the legal case? That really might make for an interesting article on the case. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 09:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | (indent reset) Someone saying someone else wrote a "seminal" work doesn't in itself do it-that would do more to enhance the notability of the ''book'' then the ''author'', but in either case the person saying it would have to have some credentials as a reliable authority on such things. Also, what were those citations of the legal case? That really might make for an interesting article on the case. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 09:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
:That doesn't make any sense what you're saying. If someone's books are notable then the author is notable because he's the author of the books. Do we make a separate article for each book than an author writes on Misplaced Pages? Of course not. We note the author and list the books. ] 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I added a citation from a legal textbook which has a pretty good sized discussion about it. Wallace has a good point in that case. How can one guarantee he is speaking the truth when he testifies? The most one can do is speak what he believes to be the truth, which is simply to be honest. ] 07:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
::"That doesn't make any sense" isn't an excuse for you to go on an edit spree. If you genuinely don't understand what someone's saying, ''ask for clarification''. If you're using "doesn't make any sense" as an excuse to shut people out, then stop. ] 11:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Disruptive editing reported on ]. ] 11:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:26, 20 February 2007
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
Sigma Xi
Bi deleted note that Wallace is a member of Sigma Xi. I contacted Sigma Xi, and they said he is an "active member." Anyone can contact them if they need to verify that. What a ridiculous deletion from Bi, anyway --who is going to lie about something so easily verified? RJII 06:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed an external link
...because it didn't seem relevant at all—or am I missing something? RJII added it, but it looks like he's been blocked, so I can't ask him. (Here's the latest diff) --zenohockey 04:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm back. That site used to have some information on the death and funeral but it's been archived. No need for the link anymore. RJII 04:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This page is possibly inaccurate
This page states that Frank R Wallace is dead. The date it states he died is prior to the date the Better Business Bureau states he appeared before them to negotiate Neo-Tech's membership with them.
Report on BBB.org's website for Neo-Tech Publishing:
http://worf.usshurdman.com/~vegas/commonreport.html?compid=48788
Scroll to bottom section with notes regarding activity and events.
I would suggest that someone verify that the man on this page is indeed deceased. Business documentation would suggest otherwise.
If it would be of assistance to anyone this is the information I have collected:
Name: Wallace Ward (unknown middle name/initial)
AKA: Frank R. Wallace
Birth: 10 Sep 1932
Alleged Death: 26 Jan 2006
Place of Death: Henderson, Nevada, USA
SSN: 123-24-9841
Last Residence: Henderson, Nevada, USA 89074
Department of Vital Records for Henderson, NV: +1 (702) 759-1011
Death Certificate verification is done between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM MST.
I have not yet been able to call them during this one hour window to verify. If someone is able to verify this information please post your results on this talk page.
Thanks,
- I suspect that the Wallace Ward mentioned by the BBB is actually his son, Wallace Ward Jr. But someone should really check up on this. Bi 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Old Neo-Tech philosophy talk page
Just for the record: part of the article was merged from "Neo-Tech (philosophy)", and here's the talk page for the old article. Bi
- (uncivil comment removed Bi 11:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
Linkspam from Nathan Shaw
I zapped two extra links which were added in the latest edit, because
- the links give undue weight to Neo-Tech's viewpoint, and besides are added in violation of conflict of interest guidelines;
- the links are described in obviously non-neutral language;
- and finally, Nathan Shaw, the editor who added the links, is a known spammer, which makes it hard to believe that the edit was done out of good faith.
-- Bi 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Disruption=
Bi, you're being really disruptive. You're deleting cited material. You object that one source is a book that's included in a "poker kit" and deleting lots of other cited information with it. The book in the poker kit is a real book with a real ISBN number. Don't delete it. And what is your excuse for deleting all the other cited info? Bridge & Tunnel 07:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Notability?
I'm having a very difficult time finding anything that would lead me to believe this guy is notable. The books cited as sources basically are just a name drop, and all the newspaper ones are obituaries. I can't find a thing else, does anyone have anything? Seraphimblade 07:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm trying to put sources in, but user "Bi" keeps deleting them. Look at all the books he's written: His book "Advanced Concepts of Poker" is a classic that all professional poker players are familiar with. He's also cited in other books. Bridge & Tunnel 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Bridge & Tunnel, I'm sure Seraphimblade also did check out your versions of the page. And yeah, they're just name-dropping, from sources which are themselves of dubious provenance. Bi 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- They're published books with ISBN numbers. Bridge & Tunnel 07:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Bi, you really need to stop being disruptive. Bridge & Tunnel 07:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did indeed check Bridge & Tunnel's version of the page, hence the reference to the books he cited. There are a lot of "real books with ISBN numbers", that doesn't establish notability, nor reliability. Seraphimblade 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then what does, in your opinion? Bridge & Tunnel 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- For reliability, academic peer-review or editorial fact-checking establishes that for a publication. For notability, the question isn't "Did he write?" but "Did people write about him?" (Remember that means "about" him, not just that they dropped his name, but that they actually devoted a significant amount of work to that person.) Seraphimblade 07:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that he has written tons of books and that third party books have talked about him and cited his books is good enough. But also he has been in the news and law books for successfully challenging the wording of the oath that one takes in court. Court cases cite his case as a notable and classic case. Bridge & Tunnel 07:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- That would do it, though in that case we may want to move the article to be about the case rather then the person. What law books or news sources are those? The one news source I see just mentions the case in passing. Seraphimblade
- I also provided source which were books about poker saying that Wallace's poker book was a "seminal" work. It's a classic. That in itself is good enough as well. Bridge & Tunnel 07:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- That would do it, though in that case we may want to move the article to be about the case rather then the person. What law books or news sources are those? The one news source I see just mentions the case in passing. Seraphimblade
- The fact that he has written tons of books and that third party books have talked about him and cited his books is good enough. But also he has been in the news and law books for successfully challenging the wording of the oath that one takes in court. Court cases cite his case as a notable and classic case. Bridge & Tunnel 07:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- For reliability, academic peer-review or editorial fact-checking establishes that for a publication. For notability, the question isn't "Did he write?" but "Did people write about him?" (Remember that means "about" him, not just that they dropped his name, but that they actually devoted a significant amount of work to that person.) Seraphimblade 07:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then what does, in your opinion? Bridge & Tunnel 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did indeed check Bridge & Tunnel's version of the page, hence the reference to the books he cited. There are a lot of "real books with ISBN numbers", that doesn't establish notability, nor reliability. Seraphimblade 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Bridge & Tunnel, I'm sure Seraphimblade also did check out your versions of the page. And yeah, they're just name-dropping, from sources which are themselves of dubious provenance. Bi 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset) Someone saying someone else wrote a "seminal" work doesn't in itself do it-that would do more to enhance the notability of the book then the author, but in either case the person saying it would have to have some credentials as a reliable authority on such things. Also, what were those citations of the legal case? That really might make for an interesting article on the case. Seraphimblade 09:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense what you're saying. If someone's books are notable then the author is notable because he's the author of the books. Do we make a separate article for each book than an author writes on Misplaced Pages? Of course not. We note the author and list the books. Bridge & Tunnel 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I added a citation from a legal textbook which has a pretty good sized discussion about it. Wallace has a good point in that case. How can one guarantee he is speaking the truth when he testifies? The most one can do is speak what he believes to be the truth, which is simply to be honest. Bridge & Tunnel 07:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- "That doesn't make any sense" isn't an excuse for you to go on an edit spree. If you genuinely don't understand what someone's saying, ask for clarification. If you're using "doesn't make any sense" as an excuse to shut people out, then stop. Bi 11:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disruptive editing reported on WP:ANI. Bi 11:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)