In the matter of Herb Schildt: wikipedia entry must be fixed

[spinoza1111]

We now know that:

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]

We now know that:

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.

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]

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

 

[Keith Thompson]

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.

 

[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.

-s

 

[Seebs]

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

 

[rigs]

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?

 

[spinoza1111]

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.

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]

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.

 

[spinoza1111]

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.

 

[spinoza1111]

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?

Yes. I'm tired of the bullying as both victim and observer.

 

[William Hughes]

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.

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.)

-s

 

[Jens Thoms Toerring]

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:U...s_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.)

Best regards, Jens