In the matter of Herb Schildt: wikipedia entry must be fixed
spinoza1111
CTCR ed. 4 was released in 2000
CTCN references (unskillfully) ed. 3.
CTCN is a major reference in the inappropriate "biography" of Herb
Schildt that was posted as the home page for malicious libel in 2006
This is a major violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons
policy and a major error. Therefore, without any special care for
wikipedia in view of its numerous malfeasances, I hereby request Peter
Seebach to remove the Reception section and all footnotes from the
wikipedia article which are used only in Reception, and make no
further changes to that article whatsoever.
If the article is not changed by Monday 12 April I will take these
actions:
1. I will raise a BLP issue at wikipedia
2. I will contact Mr. "Jimmy" Wales the head of wikipedia to bring
this matter to his attention using an email used by a person who
appears to be him when that individual commented at my blog.
rigs
Welcome to Wikipedia,
The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
But, instead of editing the article, you will impersonate Mr. Seebach
and send lulzy demands under his name? Do I have that correct? If
that is the case, I suggest you refrain from that course of action.
Seebs
>> 2. I will contact Mr. "Jimmy" Wales the head of wikipedia to bring
>> this matter to his attention using an email used by a person who
>> appears to be him when that individual commented at my blog.
> But, instead of editing the article, you will impersonate Mr. Seebach
> and send lulzy demands under his name? Do I have that correct? If
> that is the case, I suggest you refrain from that course of action.
He can't edit the article. He's been banned from Wikipedia, repeatedly,
for editing the article to remove substantially verified (by multiple
independent authorities) information that does not meet his personal
tastes.
I mean, he can get proxies and go in and re-edit it, but they just put it
back.
That said, listen to my lawyer -- do not go around trying to impersonate
me, *ESPECIALLY* after publically announcing your intent to do so. (Or
was "appears to be him" a reference to Jimmy Wales, or to someone else?
We really can't tell. Nilges can't write clearly under any known
circumstances.)
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Keith Thompson
> On 2010-04-09, rigs <rigo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2. I will contact Mr. "Jimmy" Wales the head of wikipedia to bring
>>> this matter to his attention using an email used by a person who
>>> appears to be him when that individual commented at my blog.
>
>> But, instead of editing the article, you will impersonate Mr. Seebach
>> and send lulzy demands under his name? Do I have that correct? If
>> that is the case, I suggest you refrain from that course of action.
>
> He can't edit the article. He's been banned from Wikipedia, repeatedly,
> for editing the article to remove substantially verified (by multiple
> independent authorities) information that does not meet his personal
> tastes.
>
> I mean, he can get proxies and go in and re-edit it, but they just put it
> back.
>
> That said, listen to my lawyer -- do not go around trying to impersonate
> me, *ESPECIALLY* after publically announcing your intent to do so. (Or
> was "appears to be him" a reference to Jimmy Wales, or to someone else?
> We really can't tell. Nilges can't write clearly under any known
> circumstances.)
My interpretation was that Wales had apparently commented on Nilges'
blog, and that Nilges intends to contact Wales using the commenter's
address.
The assumption that Nilges stated an intention to impersonate Seebs
implies that Seebs commented at Nilges' blog, which is possible but
unlikely (Seebs can confirm this either way if he so chooses).
I believe that rigs misunderstood what Nilges wrote.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
rigs
> On 2010-04-09, rigs <rigor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 2. I will contact Mr. "Jimmy" Wales the head of wikipedia to bring
> >> this matter to his attention using an email used by a person who
> >> appears to be him when that individual commented at my blog.
> > But, instead of editing the article, you will impersonate Mr. Seebach
> > and send lulzy demands under his name? Do I have that correct? If
> > that is the case, I suggest you refrain from that course of action.
>
> He can't edit the article. He's been banned from Wikipedia, repeatedly,
> for editing the article to remove substantially verified (by multiple
> independent authorities) information that does not meet his personal
> tastes.
>
> I mean, he can get proxies and go in and re-edit it, but they just put it
> back.
>
> That said, listen to my lawyer -- do not go around trying to impersonate
> me, *ESPECIALLY* after publically announcing your intent to do so. (Or
> was "appears to be him" a reference to Jimmy Wales, or to someone else?
> We really can't tell. Nilges can't write clearly under any known
> circumstances.)
>
> -s
> --
So what's the deal with the extreme white knighting here? The
meltdown is interesting (and the Frankfurt School stuff is a nice
touch) and the internet quality threats of litigation are amusing, but
does he even have a dog in this fight?
Seebs
> meltdown is interesting (and the Frankfurt School stuff is a nice
> touch) and the internet quality threats of litigation are amusing, but
> does he even have a dog in this fight?
No one knows. My guess is that it's just severe and untreated NPD, and
that someone he disliked told him Schildt's books were bad; as a result,
he has huge ego involvement in the claim that this is untrue.
Which turns out to be a very bad place to be, mentally, because it's
pretty obvious that the books are atrocious.
-s
--
Seebs
> The assumption that Nilges stated an intention to impersonate Seebs
> implies that Seebs commented at Nilges' blog, which is possible but
> unlikely (Seebs can confirm this either way if he so chooses).
Actually, I can't -- my memory's not good enough. It's possible that
I did, although I don't remember doing so.
Lorenzo Villari
Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-04-09, rigs <rigo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So what's the deal with the extreme white knighting here? The
> > meltdown is interesting (and the Frankfurt School stuff is a nice
> > touch) and the internet quality threats of litigation are amusing,
> > but does he even have a dog in this fight?
>
> No one knows. My guess is that it's just severe and untreated NPD,
> and that someone he disliked told him Schildt's books were bad; as a
> result, he has huge ego involvement in the claim that this is untrue.
>
> Which turns out to be a very bad place to be, mentally, because it's
> pretty obvious that the books are atrocious.
>
> -s
I've got this little theory: he too thinks the books are atrocious but,
he pretend to be offended by what you wrote, because he needs something
to do endless flame wars to occupy his time. He chose this subject
because, being undefendable, is perfect for this purpose...
An interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhea_(psychology)
spinoza1111
No, I went to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard and posted
my facts. This is what I did last year when the article was even more
of an assault on Schildt, and a neutral administrator at that time
removed ALL information that was critical of Schildt.
Peter Seebach then vandalized the article again and it remains
vandalized, now with Snarky Tirade II referenced instead of Snarky
Tirade I. As Malcolm has pointed out, Snarky Tirade I was obviously
biased and NNPOV which makes the Reception section NNPOV. Snarky
Tirade II is even more biased.
spinoza1111
> On 2010-04-09, rigs <rigor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 2. I will contact Mr. "Jimmy" Wales the head of wikipedia to bring
> >> this matter to his attention using an email used by a person who
> >> appears to be him when that individual commented at my blog.
> > But, instead of editing the article, you will impersonate Mr. Seebach
> > and send lulzy demands under his name? Do I have that correct? If
> > that is the case, I suggest you refrain from that course of action.
>
> He can't edit the article. He's been banned from Wikipedia, repeatedly,
> for editing the article to remove substantially verified (by multiple
> independent authorities) information that does not meet his personal
> tastes.
This is not true. Wikipedia takes no steps to ban posts from anonymous
IP addresses and for this reason is not legally or ethically entitled
to "ban" anyone in this sense. Its slogan itself says that "everyone"
can edit. I am physically able to edit wikipedia and here to post a
BLP notice.
>
> I mean, he can get proxies and go in and re-edit it, but they just put it
> back.
>
> That said, listen to my lawyer -- do not go around trying to impersonate
> me, *ESPECIALLY* after publically announcing your intent to do so. (Or
> was "appears to be him" a reference to Jimmy Wales, or to someone else?
> We really can't tell. Nilges can't write clearly under any known
> circumstances.)
You're going to be talking to MY lawyer, Mr. Seebach, if this
continues. Let me "illucidate". The sentence clearly states that I
used an email [address] of the person who commented on my blog to
notify this person, who appears to be Wales, of the issue.
>
> -s
> --
spinoza1111
> On 2010-04-09, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>
> > The assumption that Nilges stated an intention to impersonate Seebs
> > implies that Seebs commented at Nilges' blog, which is possible but
> > unlikely (Seebs can confirm this either way if he so chooses).
>
> Actually, I can't -- my memory's not good enough. It's possible that
> I did, although I don't remember doing so.
Let me clear up your memory and understanding, since a missing word
(should have said "email address" for the autistic reader) confused
you. I have the email address of someone who appeared, based on his
style, what he said and the email address, to be Jimbo Wales.
Seebach has never commented on my blog unless he's used a pseudonym,
and he is not welcome to.
>
> -s
> --
spinoza1111
Yes. I'm tired of the bullying as both victim and observer.
William Hughes
> Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> writes:
Yeah, my reading was
"I'm going to contact Jimmy Wales and furthermore
I have the e-mail address he uses to comment on blogs!"
Just for fun I typed "Jimmy Wales e-mail" a Google and got
an e-mail address. I suppose that this one is no good.
- William Hughes
Seebs
> Yeah, my reading was
> "I'm going to contact Jimmy Wales and furthermore
> I have the e-mail address he uses to comment on blogs!"
Oh-hoh!
That would indeed make more sense. Marginally.
That said, if in fact Jimmy Wales has commented on Nilges' blog, I think
we can safely assume that he is going to refer any missives from Nilges
to the department of People Who Laugh At Kooks. I'm guessing that with
the volume of incoherent email they get, any one person would probably die
from laughing too much from trying to handle the whole load, so they probably
have a team of people who alternate between processing complaints and looking
at pictures of children crying over their dead puppies, just to minimize the
injury. (I wonder, does OSHA yet cover techniques to keep people from getting
injured laughing at stupidity? It should.)
Jens Thoms Toerring
> On 2010-04-09, William Hughes <wpih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, my reading was
> > "I'm going to contact Jimmy Wales and furthermore
> > I have the e-mail address he uses to comment on blogs!"
> Oh-hoh!
> That would indeed make more sense. Marginally.
> That said, if in fact Jimmy Wales has commented on Nilges' blog, I think we
> can safely assume that he is going to refer any missives from Nilges to the
> department of People Who Laugh At Kooks.
If you have a look at
one starts to wonder even more what he's going to write to "Jimbo"
Wales this time - might be fun being able to watch;) (Sorry if this
has already been cited elsethread, I only just stumbled upon it now.)
Best regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ j...@toerring.de
\__________________________ http://toerring.de
Richard Harter
wrote:
>Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-04-09, William Hughes <wpih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Yeah, my reading was
>
>> > "I'm going to contact Jimmy Wales and furthermore
>> > I have the e-mail address he uses to comment on blogs!"
>
>> Oh-hoh!
>
>> That would indeed make more sense. Marginally.
>
>> That said, if in fact Jimmy Wales has commented on Nilges' blog, I think we
>> can safely assume that he is going to refer any missives from Nilges to the
>> department of People Who Laugh At Kooks.
>
>If you have a look at
>
>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:US_History/Secession#Comments_from_Talk:US_History.2FContents.2FSecession
>
>one starts to wonder even more what he's going to write to "Jimbo"
>Wales this time - might be fun being able to watch;) (Sorry if this
>has already been cited elsethread, I only just stumbled upon it now.)
How utterly charming. He Who Barks At The Moon drools.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.
Richard Heathfield
> We now know that:
>
> CTCR ed. 4 was released in 2000
>
> CTCN references (unskillfully) ed. 3.
Yes, it only scratched the surface of the general awfulness of the book.
<nonsense about a Wikipedia article snipped>
>
> If the article is not changed by Monday 12 April I will take these
> actions:
>
> 1. I will raise a BLP issue at wikipedia
>
> 2. I will contact Mr. "Jimmy" Wales the head of wikipedia to bring
> this matter to his attention using an email used by a person who
> appears to be him when that individual commented at my blog.
Who cares? We all know Wikipedia is far from authoritative. If the Wiki
guys are silly enough to allow you to make it even less authoritative,
so what? And if they're not, they're not.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within