Talk:Wally Wallington

Notable?

You've got to be kidding me. Wikipedia has extended detailed articles describing single episodes of television sitcoms. This guy has demonstrated interesting techniques that suggest how Stonehenge may have been built -- and you're calling this article on notability.

I agree. This is very notable. We also should keep an eye on progress, that'll be real interesting. - Redmess 18:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. If Stonehenge construction technique is notable, then this person is notable. Even though you can call him a popularizer instead of an originator, the demonstration is a significant step in public discourse.(81.167.11.207 (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC))

This all misses the point. Wikipedia has criteria for notability that must be met, see WP:Notability (people). How unusual or even unique he was isn't directly relevant. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Is he still alive?

I went to his site but it appears he stopped experimenting in 2007. It would be a great tragedy indeed for the world to lose such an original and motivated thinker. --Jaded-view (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm Pretty Sure He's Deceased

So, it should adhere to the rules for biographies of DEAD persons.66.82.9.61 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source stating that he is in fact deceased? It is necessary for verification before the article can be updated. Thanks, œ^™ 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, he isn't. I have 2 emails from him The snare (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems with his methods

All his equipment has made using modern tools (at least it doesn't show us him making them) and they didn't have water hoses in ancient Britain to wash out the sand, (and Stonehenge doesn't appear to be shown to be constructed that way either) and he hasn't shown how you can the put the stone block on top.

If you think your edit was not original research, you can defend it at WP:NORN, but read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY first. And given your post to my talk page, WP:NPA. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack, just I'm saying your biased by only editing what you don't like, and not other stuff you don't. The snare (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that's not correct. I remove stuff I like at times because it's against policy or guidelines. I doubt that I'm perfect though. Dougweller (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

refences

Reference 1 is a paywall with unknown content behind. Collision-Shift (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It happens. — Smuckola(talk) 23:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)