Talk:Tom Stone (magician)

Comment from subject's talk page

I got the following message from Krash:

• I just wanted to advise that it's considered bad form to edit articles about yourself (see WP:VAIN). Wikipedia has lately seen a number of vanity articles written about magicians and I don't want anything you're trying to do be viewed as bad faith.

and

• I'm not questioning the verifiability or notability as I checked out the sources the same day the article was created. I'm just saying that someone who didn't agree with you could use the vanity point to construct a strawman/red herring in an attempt to discredit your editing and/or motives.

Unfortunately Krash is right. After checking the references provided, I found that this technically is a vanity article, since I wrote it myself. However, I'm a bit reluctant to delete it, as I also, from an objective stance, consider me to have notability within my field. That, of course, might also be vanity speaking. Therefore, I'm raising the warning flags myself, to alert people that this article might be biased, and possibly should be deleted if deemed unimportant. --TStone 04:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Page updated.  :) Please review it and let us know if you'd like any further changes, by posting here. And, welcome! Elonka 10:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Innovation

I've removed the following line for the time being:

who has innovated and improved several magical effects

We need a reference that proves the assertion. In addition, the list of self published lecture notes is highly unusual. I'm not sure what that proves, but my personal view is that the list should be cut. -- JJay 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if we can't find some sort of confirmation on some of them, such as reviews in other press, the doubtful ones should be removed. However, I'd suggest leaving them there for a few days right now under the assume good faith principle, to see if Stone can help provide references. As for the "innovation" statement, the "Warpsmith" techniques seem (at least to me) to have verification in other industry periodicals. The "several" may be in question though. Some re-wording is probably in order to make it more accurate, but the term "innovate" appears verifiable to me. Elonka 22:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by the Warpsmith technique since it is not mentioned in the article. In fact I don't see any discussion there regarding this magician and innovation and magical effects. We need sources that assert that Tom Stone has innovated and improved something. Regarding the photocopies, lecture notes and other self published items, what do they prove? And how are they verifiable? Are these works available through Amazon for example? -- JJay 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Elonka, could you explain what you intend by the "references" you just added? One looks to be a message board post. One seems to be a price list of some kind. One looks to be a Swedish blog, etc. These would not seem to qualify as references that can be used here. -- JJay 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The price list is indicated as verification of Stone's publications -- it's a third-party listing with a wide variety of magic publications, including Stone's, to verify that Stone's works are "real". The Swedish page (I can't understand all of it), appears to be a mixture of Swedish and English with blurbs from multiple people commenting on Stone's books. As for the message board post (if we're talking about the same thing), I think I may have linked that one because it showed the administrator of a magazine site posting about one of the books. The general user chatter I tend to disregard, but when it's a sysop or administrator of the site posting, that has more weight. I could see moving it to the "External links" section though, since I agree that it's borderline. Elonka 01:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)