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.
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).In the early days of the Internet, Wales was very active in the Usenet newsgroup alt.philosophy.objectivism, and he had a hand in starting humanities.philosophy.objectivism.The latter newsgroup was formed with a moderator specifically to keep Neo-Techers out, as shown here in a Jimmy Wales post from 1996: https://groups.google.com/forum/#! Neo-Tech, provides breakthrough business techniques, systems, and paradigms.) Many objectivists who preferred low-effort, ivory-tower intellectual exercises on Usenet as opposed to in-the-trenches business efforts in the real world…who preferred showing off their “brilliance” in the low-effort, sum-zero online debate world instead of actualizing Objectivism in the challenging, value-building business world as Neo-Tech and alt.philosophy.objectisim, and they can be seen by going to those newsgroups https://groups.google.com/forum/#! Look at the posts made in both newsgroups back in the mid-90s. My deeper concern beyond the “Bi” stalkers on Wikipedia is whether the Wikipedia founder and a top administrator could be bias down deep….perhaps doing to Neo-Tech Philosophy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User: Shlomif/Neo-Tech Remember, on my father’s Talk page Frank_R._Wallace users repeatedly request for more material on the Neo-Tech philosophy itself.A short, uncontroversial explanation of Neo-Tech should be acceptable. I certainly don’t know anything of the philosophy, and so I cannot contribute anything myself; so there’s your explanation.—Cast (talk) , 30 January 2011 (UTC)Well, the problem isn’t that those who know of Wallace are unaware of this.