User talk:Lilith2396

Conduct on Wikipedia talk:What is a troll?

"You have the right to free speech. Unless you're dumb enough to actually try it!" - The Clash

Watch this page folks. Watch a new user get labeled a "troll" and permanently blocked for her writings on her own talk page!.

You're extremely close to a permanent block from Wikipedia. Whether logged-in or not, trolling on any Wikipedia page – including Wikipedia talk:What is a troll? – isn't acceptable. Your account is blocked from editing for 24 hours.

Edward Nilges is right, even if he's a weird guy (I know him personally). Trolling doesn't mean "things that offend white American males". It means (look at your own definition) anonymous and insincere postings. I have identified myself as he has and I posted what I feel. It appears to me that all you guys can feel is hatred.

You've made a couple of reasonable edits to New math. Perhaps you ought to concentrate on areas where you can contribute positively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as Edward says, you're all too ready to spot people more literate than you and enslave them, and then drive them away if they as field hands get uppity.

You are in your ignorance endangering people including hard-working teachers who come here and contribute, because you consistently find fault with them (often owing to your own limitations) and then drive them away...stealing their content.

I am going to revert my edit to the New Math article. You can't have it. Edward contributed content about Kant based on his reading of Kant and not some encyclopedia, on Adorno based on Wiggershaus, on Poussin, on legacy computing...only to be driven away, probably so Jimbo Wales can make another million when wikipedia is published on paper.

He defends others like the man you'll never be. I've seen his work on the libelous Schildt page. Schildt is being attacked for being a successful author by people who cannot write, and Edward has a book which today is #20 in compilers, I see. Therefore, since both he and Herb have actually accomplished something, you losers use the only form of "publication" available to you to seek to destroy them.

You are thieves! You are thugs!

Please, try getting both sides of the story before you buy into Edward's BS. Right now you are just being

We're getting only your side, since you so often remove his comments. We have heard you repeatedly complain about being "insulted". If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, and don't put other users into gas ovens, lest the smoke of that great burning overcome you.

a meatpuppet.

I find this tiresome and patronizing, and sexist. You boys certainly love your terms of art. But you can't neologise your way out of your basic cruelty and malice. Furthermore, you aren't exactly word smiths, are you? You criticise Edward precisely because he's more literate than you, yet like the French, of all people, you are constantly in a vain and silly attempt to legislate the meanings of the words. Then, like the French of the Terror, of all people, you go and condemn people based on your silly dictionaries.

The general definition of a troll is someone who is being a troublemaker--posting irrelevant comments,

There is genuine trouble, much of which you cause to people like Schildt. At the same time, the disruption is symbolic in your case: your peace of mind, your sense of yourselves as knowing all there is to know (which Edward seems to have quite a lot of fun with, being genuinely well-educated, if an irritating autodidact, like Glenn Gould).

However, you don't seem to pause to consider the disruption that you intend to cause individual, isolated targets with your malicious conduct, or if you do, you seem to delight in it. Your conduct endangers jobs and causes pain to family members.

Your "disruption" is to your rather overvalued amour-propre, I fear.

insulting other users, attempting to derail conversations, etc.--which both you and Edward have done.

Certainly, Edward is trying to derail certain closely-watched trains of thought. He justifies it consistently by reference to your own policies insofar as they make sense to him. Of course, intelligent people are often warned not to excessively hermeneuticise (is that a verb? oh well) texts, but that's what we all do.

You seem to think you know what "trolling and vandalism" are. You construct a pretty page in which everybody speaks in pear-shaped tones, and you gaze at this, as Ste.-Juste gazes, in Abel Gance's Napoleon, at the beautiful mound of death sentences. The fact that to do so you've caused pain is not important to some of you. To others, that's the whole point, isn't it?

This has nothing to do with white males, it has nothing to do with Jimbo Wales, it has nothing to do with hatred. It has to do with myself and other users being tired of the constant stream of abuse from Edward and now, it appears, from his friends. We have stolen nothing from Edward--the edits he accuses me of copying from him involved the removal of a few particularly ridiculous adjectives from the lead of Ayn Rand

You got that from him. You didn't notice it until after he pointed it out.

(incidentally, I also removed about 10k of unnecessary text from the rest of the article).

Furthermore, content you post on Wikipedia is not yours. Even if you revert it, it stays in the edit history. So in fact we can have it. You have given it away and waived all rights you had to it by posting it here; it is now under the GNU license. But see, that's not the attitude to take. It's not about "mine!"--you as a leftist (you do seem to be one, forgive me if I'm wrong) should understand that. Rather, it's about sharing your knowledge and improvements with the world. You are contributing to a wider project, one that hopes to expand and categorize human knowledge, and is already one of the most incredibly useful references in existence. You are taking part in a great undertaking, and even I, stingy conservative deletionist bastard that I am, feel kind of good about that. It's not about me; it's about the world. Wikipedia is about truth--not about ideology. In fact, it's about more than truth--it's about verifiability. Original research is not inherently verifiable, and permitting it would risk allowing Wikipedia to turn into a constant ideological war zone. Well, it already is that, but allowing OR would make matters worse. Using established sources ensures a certain amount of respectability, and helps filter out cranks, fringe theories, and blatant lies. Unfortunately, Edward's analyses of Kant and Rand that he wants included is original research. It might be very good original research; it might be the best damned original research that God's green earth has ever seen. However, it is still original research, and until he gains sufficient notability himself, the should not be included.

I threw up right about the point where you said "it's about truth, not ideology", because ideologies are ideologies precisely when they make such claims, and about the time when the human sacrifice, here, so far, of reputation and time of disfavored contributors, begins.

The truth is that Schildt has been strongly criticized. From what I understand of the situation, thn e people who are criticizing Schildt are doing so because they believe what he published on C to be fundamentally incorrect, and that this may well in fact be verifiable. It is debatable whether this criticism should be included on his page--I've not looked into the matter enough to come to a conclusion yet. What I do know is that flaming and insulting other users is not the way to win friends, influence people, or reach consensus. Despite the fact that he frequently has legitimate points, Edward has shown himself to be incapable of participation in a civil debate. When he has been called on his behavior it has only worsened, to the point where he issued legal threats against me.

He's pointed out that since the civil law defines what it is to be civil, it can't be incivil. Clever bastard.

Wikipedia's civility policies do not incorporate a body of noncriminal law and instead outline a code of conduct. This argument doesn't make sense and violates WP:Wikilawyering. Idag (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You little creeps generate inhuman concepts at warp speed, don't you. Oh, now, what's "wikilawyering"? Standing up to Massah? Being an uppity Nigra? Being a Westernised Oriental Gentleman who has studied too much for his own good?

You've created nothing more than a virtual plantation and you're possessed by the ghosts of your Klan grand-daddies.

I am responding because I hope that you will reconsider the track you are following. Wikipedia is not out to get you. I am not out to get you. I in fact think you should stay and contribute constructively. I am, however, sick and tired of the abuse that Edward has heaped upon other editors, and am less than thrilled to see friends of his engaging in the same behavior. I want to see it stop, one way or another. I would prefer for both you and Edward to stay, and to contribute civilly and in good faith while respecting others' differing opinions. Go read the policy. Go read the archives and edit histories on Talk:Ayn Rand, and some of the other things that Edward has written. Try to understand where we are coming from before you start attacking us. Take a few deep breaths, have a cup of tea, and realize that Wikipedia is not personal--or at least that it shouldn't be. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just dry up. I am all too familiar with pompous fat technical men who with subaltern jobs overcompensate for their utter lack of distinction by issuing such pronouncements, and I've seen their technical dreck destroy companies. You've been deliberately cruel to Schildt, you tried to call Kathy Sierra a liar until Edward stopped you in your tracks, and most people haven't your respect for Rand.

I have friends at McGraw-Hill. How do you suppose they feel? I'd guess relief, in not being a target, and anger, because Herb's books were tech-edited. You resent the predominance of Microsoft hardware which caused the code examples to work, and Clive Feather found his great "standardization" effort greeted with a collective ho-hum.

Encyclopedias don't include fraudulent people. To avoid legal liability, the fraud has to have a name independent of the perp. Therefore, there is a Lysenkoism since a large number of people were forced to believe a "dialectical" account of biology in the Soviet Union. There is a Creationism because real social structures are forcing real teachers to adhere to it.

Because of your lack of education (sometimes actually instilled in you at institutions of higher learning such as the University at Amherst, brave Amherst), you think society is composed of atoms, and nothing else. "There is no such thing as society".

You actually believe that one guy, such as Schildt, has started a perverse movement, Schildtismus, and this is nonsense.

People don't care. Competent programmers use Java outside of OS code, and OS code written in C uses elaborate wraps specific to environments.

You know this, but after the failure of Richard Heathfield's book C Unleashed, nobody was interested in publishing your self-advertisements.

Your civility is hypocrisy and you're beyond corrupt, because you are in a Star Wars cultural fantasy in which you're pure and good.

...but man, proud man,

Drest in a little brief authority,

Most ignorant of what he's most assured,

His glassy essence, like an angry ape,

Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven

As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,

Would all themselves laugh mortal.

- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act II sc 2

If this is what you truly believe, why exactly are you here? "Stupid convenience store clerks", as Edward likes to call us, are not going to change their minds based on your brilliant prose. So the way I see it, you have two options: 1) pick an article that you can contribute to in a civil and positive way and get cracking on it, or 2) go away. In layman's terms: either roll up your sleeves or get out of the kitchen. Idag (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely as the "freedom" of pornographers became the "freedom" to put women and twinkie gay men into humiliating and painful situations on screen, your "freedom" becomes the freedom to assert a control that you don't have over your lives.

You want me to be another naked slave, and it titillates you to imagine me thus, doesn't it?

...who comes into your fantasy devoid and bereft of anything, like you wanted Edward to be: a new fish in your prison who was supposed to submit himself to anal rape by the people with "barnstars", little men impotent in real life and potent only in the nacreous glow of computer screens in the basement or trailer to which real life has assigned them.

It looks like I'm here to make your lives miserable. This would not be the case had you been like the original wikipedians.

Remember "be bold"?

Once again, white boys prove incapable of understanding a "freedom" that is not a lifestyle accessory of people already popular, whose ability to be just a cut above the utterly banal makes them the toast of the herd.

"Freedom" was designed for the wretched and unpopular fellows and gals yet you hound and harass and label people like characters out of Shirley Jackson. You fetishize concepts until they become barnstars, and tickets that must be punched.

It's WRONG to call a gal a philosopher when the only reason she was believed was her sordid success at writing trash. It's far more wrong to label someone so adept at expressing his views, so familiar through actual reading of primary sources...who it seems majored in philosophy and taught it with a BA only...as a "troll", and it sure as hell sounds to me like a bunch of Germans, circa 1933, saying "Juden, raus!"

You are insulted if I call you Nazis? How about I call you Burmese generals? How about I call you Bush creatures? You've endangered Edward's meatspace reputation by labeling him a troll, yet you labeled him a troll so as to look good in any kind of casual review.

Like the Burmese generals, you are indifferent to the pain of others when you're not causing it, and for what? An encyclopedia that is becoming a massive joke, which editors forbid their reporters to use and which teachers forbid their students to use?

All you have to say is, "Nilges? he's a troll", and in any kind of superficial hearing, you come off to the ignorant as the nice, normal people, whose normality is constructed by the (false) image of Edward you project as some homeless guy in a public library.

He's not. He's a teacher and an author who's also supported a family. Of course, if you manage to destroy his reputation, he might be a homeless guy, but he'll be more the man you'll ever be even so.

You make me sick.

You make two incorrect assumptions: 1) you assume I'm a man and 2) you assume I'm less qualified than Nilges. Just because some of us let our Wikipedia contributions speak for us instead of our names does not mean that we're less qualified than Nilges; it merely means that we are secure enough in our intellect to earn respect instead of asking for it wherever we go. As far as Nilges, he was banned for his conduct long before he started editing the Ayn Rand article. The applicable rules do not permit him to get around this block by using anonymous IPs and so we merely enforced the applicable Wikipedia policies. If you are not a sock puppet of Nilges, then I again urge you to make constructive edits instead of writing long posts that ultimately won't make any difference in Nilges' Wikipedia fate. 69.140.221.128 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

His persecution started with Amerindianarts, who labeled him a troll merely because Nilges felt that responsible authorship of a philosophy article demanded some interpretation that would be inappropriate in an article about mere facts external to the mind. Amerindianarts did so without discussion despite the fact that Nilges was being encouraged by the informal leader of the group to change the article: that moderator told Nilges to comment less and write [article content] more.

Amerindianarts neither understood nor discussed Nilges' contention. Nilges as an older man accustomed (as is evident from letters and opinion articles he's published) to speaking his mind, responded brusquely, and without any discussion, Amerindianarts proceeded to use mechanisms to permanently label him as a "troll", as Jews were labeled "dirty Jews" and hounded out of the professions in Nazi Germany.

Since then, this incident has been used to refuse to discuss Edward's numerous and intelligent contributions. Despite this, he got the Kathy Sierra and Herb Schildt articles changed to make them conform to wikipedia's own policies, in a way that protects not him (instead, it exposed him to further online harassment) but Herbert Schildt, Kathy Sierra, and Jimbo Wales, the last from liability.

He then turned, as someone who unlike the other contributors, was invited to teach philosophy at university level after graduation with a BA only, to an analysis of why it's troubling and NNPOV to call Ayn Rand a philosopher.

In each case, overawed without admitting it by Edward's arguments, and, where he cites based on reading books as opposed to mindlessly and ignorantly citing factoids and Web sites, not able to follow his reasoning, you have made a single argument: don't listen to this man, he is a troll (ein Juden) and not one of the Volk.

Even if he is a troll, you are bound to at least try under your charter to consider the content of his views, and in each case, his very prolixity was that of a man not "trolling" but telling you why he thought the way he did. In each case, he was friendly until you fucked with him.

You found this quite a surprise. This is because as soft males and subaltern harridans, you are accustomed on your day jobs to taking rations of shit, and as authoritarians, you come in here wounded by your treatment itching to project your anxieties on someone else.

And dig this, hon. I don't give a flying fuck whether you're a woman. None of your buddies are real men, and you take up the cause of a small group of redneck white boys who are trying to privatize wikipedia and cashout by driving away its best contributors.

I am almost 100% certain that nobody can alter Nilges' "wikipedia fate". I'd only add that you don't know how to write, and for this reason, your metaphors reveal who you are. You're pornographically interested, aren't you, sweetie, in seeing the symbolic destruction of someone because you're a sadist who is forced to be a masochist in the real world. His "fate" thrills you and your friends.

Oh, am I being naughty? Too bad. The real pornography is your intellectual pornography, in which you allow and encourage the use of wikipedia as a machine to destroy the reputations and standing of decent individuals who aren't rich thugs.

Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile:

Filths savour but themselves. What have you done?

If that the heavens do not their visible spirits

Send quickly down to tame these vile offences,

It will come,

Huma nity must perforce prey on itself,

Like monsters of the deep.

Edward self-identified without any prompting or encouragement on our part. Even then, I sincerely doubt that his real-life reputation will be destroyed by something he wrote on Wikipedia.

Outer Space Is Where You Discover Wonder, Where You Fight And Never Hurt Earth. If You Stop Believing This, Your Mood Turns Ugly. - Jenny Holzer, The Survival Series

As far as writing ability, I've written 15 books

No professional writer would use "as far as writing ability" like that.

In adverbial clauses, the natural constructions are virtually limited to "as far as" - "is concerned" - or "as far as x goes", and the verbal extensions may not be omitted. [Emphasis Burchfield's] - Fowler's Modern English, Rev. 3rd Edition, RW Burchfield, OUP 1996.

and don't need any lessons from someone who completely lacks the ability to concisely convey a

Edward's verbosity was an artifact of his attempt to be collegial and assume good faith under the original rules of wikipedia, and to marshal his arguments. Simplicity of writing so fetishized is usually associated with aliteracy.

point. With this kind of writing, I can only imagine what type of school would hire you as a

You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Or to Edward? Never mind: I don't give a damn. This is Fascist talk. Fascists are quite fond, in fact, of the outraged pose, that of the petit-bourgeois aping his perceived betters, who is in a permanent state of outrage that his children are being taught by Jews, or homos, or the Interhamwe, and who renarrates his basic anger at a civilization that has subalterned him a righteous anger, in the name of a higher purity of education, which allows him to burn down the schoolhouse and kill actual teachers.

teacher. Finally, as far as being a troll,

This is even less literate since you've not only eliminated "is concerned" to complete the adverbial phrase, this adverbial phrase has no verb and is merely you losing your temper. For the last time, a troll is one who posts anonymously to get a rise out of people, and from the start Edward attempted to be a good-faith communicator and to identify himself. He cited Wiggershaus' major and hard to get history of the Frankfurt school to improve the Adorno article in 2005. He apparently actually read Kant before improving the Kant article and apparently, amerindianarts did not. Recently, he removed information from the Extended Precision article when told it appeared in Aribitrary Precision.

For the last time, this is not a troll.

your primary purpose here appears to be to argue with as many people as possible. Your communication with others is limited to pointless profanity-filled tirades insulting everyone around you. That type of conduct is what makes you a troll. Since you clearly have no intention of either contributing to Wikipedia or remaining civil, this will be my last response to you pursuant to WP:Troll. Idag (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your primary purpose here is to set up as a false authority: I don't care how many books you've written, you're an inadequate person who prefers wikipedia since you can form micro-communities with your fellow misfits and creeps world-wide, and define a micro-misfit reality.

But as a primitive community, you need your little human sacrifice. Blood guilt bonds you in your shame.

You think it won't damage him because you are playing with yourselves and he wasn't.

"Conveying a point concisely" is of course very easy for people who in fact lack any real education and whose Mommies and Daddies have put them through some second-rate university. Edward isn't concise because he knows more than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.102.233 (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Temp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Temp.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Lilith2396)

Hello, Lilith2396. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lilith2396, where you may want to participate. -- Idag (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

Stop adding your defense to the above page. The page is simply for listing RfCs, it's not for you to start defending yourself on. Save it for the RfC itself. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Herbert Schildt

You have already violated the three-revert-rule on this talk page. Because you are relatively new, I'll let that slide this time. I suggest you stop assisting blocked users in evading their block though. Blocked users don't get to edit (that's the purpose of the block). That includes talk page comments. You will find yourself blocked as well if you continue this behavior.--Atlan (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet case opened

Due to the fact that you are virtually indistinguishable from blocked user Spinoza1111, I opened a sock puppet case against that user that affects you. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spinoza1111. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Block evasion, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spinoza1111. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)