Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Geocities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] =

Angela and Kate,

How come you have not called in a group of impartial observers? Below was suggested bys omebody in the defamatory and corrupt article on me.

Barbara Schwarz

I would suggest some form of dispute resolution... maybe an WP:RfC or send this whole messy debate to the WP:Arbitration Committee. Would anyone who's capable of keeping a clear head care to write up the case? 206.114.20.121 18:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea if that arbitrator indeed should be impartial. But what do you mean with "writing the case up"? Isn't the case already written up and documented in the talk section and the history section? As soon as I add information about my own life, people who don't know me but hate me because I am a Scientologist delete the information and add false information. It is already documented in the history part and talk part of this article. User Vivaldi rocks! Barbara Schwarz

Barbara: Wikipedia has procedures for calling in a group of impartial observers. Of course, the facts of the disagreement need to be brought to their attention. 16:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC) I corresponded already with the Board (Angela) and the Information team (Kate) on this article. They give a damn! Kate told me that this article will not take my time. What a joke! Whenever I put some truth in the article, lying criminals like Tilman Hausherr or Marty Sharp (stole the Vivaldi ID from me) put up the lies and misinformation again. Wikipedia allows that. The people who want to close it down are right. Wikipedia is a fraud.

[edit] ==

From: Wikipedia information team <info-en@wikimedia.org> Mailed-By: wikimedia.org

Thank you for your mail.

Barbara Schwarz <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:

> Angela and Kate, > How come you have not called in a group of impartial observers? Below was > suggested bys omebody in the defamatory and corrupt article on me. > Barbara Schwarz > I would suggest some form of dispute resolution... > > maybe an WP:RfC <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfC> or send this whole > messy debate to the WP:Arbitration > Committee<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:Arbitration_Committee&action=edit>. > Would anyone who's capable of keeping a clear head care to write up the > case? 206.114.20.121 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:206.114.20.121>18:03, 6 September > 2005 (UTC) > I think that is a good idea if that arbitrator indeed should be impartial. > But what do you mean with "writing the case up"? Isn't the case already > written up and documented in the talk section and the history section? As > soon as I add information about my own life, people who don't know me but > hate me because I am a Scientologist delete the information and add false > information. It is already documented in the history part and talk part of > this article. > > User Vivaldi > rocks!<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_Vivaldi_rocks%21&action=edit>Barbara > Schwarz > Barbara: Wikipedia has procedures for calling in a group of impartial > observers. Of course, the facts of the disagreement need to be brought to > their attention. 16:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC) I corresponded already > with the Board (Angela) and the Information team (Kate) on this article. > They give a damn! Kate told me that this article will not take my time. What > a joke! Whenever I put some truth in the article, lying criminals like > Tilman Hausherr or Marty Sharp (stole the Vivaldi ID from me) put up the > lies and misinformation again. Wikipedia allows that. The people who want to > close it down are right. Wikipedia is a fraud. > > Barbara Schwarz User Vivaldi > rocks! >

This address is not the place to resolve disputes about articles. I advised you that I would bring in trusted editors to look at the article on you so that you did not have to waste your time on it, and indeed several trusted and impartial people from different viewpoints and differing levels of familiarity with your activities did so, advising that the article was suitably neutral and the claims made were suitably verifiable. I'm sorry you disagree with this claim; you can review our policies here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

If you do wish to pursue avenues of dispute resolution, they are detailed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

However, at this point the article has been looked at by several trusted contributors and the ongoing situation is being reviewed by several administrators. I am sorry that you believe our processes are not successful here, and it appears that your disagreements with it are such that you are not likely to see the changes you wish made. The article has survived a deletion request and will remain in the encyclopedia in some form, though of course it may be edited in the future.

In any case, there is nothing further I can do from this address, as disputes are resolved by the processes described in the link above within the community itself, and not by the Board or the information staff.

Sincerely, Kat Walsh

-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org

[edit] =======

From: Barbara Schwarz <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com>

Ms. Kate Walsh and all Board members,

Wikipedia is defaming me and stealing my time.

Who are trusted editors? There are none. A few good people are immediately overpowered by the Wikipedia Scientologists hating mob. They are like Nazis.

The only one who posted sofar fair is a poster with ID "AI" the rest rotts together and lies and block any kind of truth in that maliciously false article. Somebody from Vienna a "Lily" and a Mormon were also bullied.

One of these gang members blocked even that anybody can make changes. Is that free speech? Wikipedia could be Stalin's property, it is so outrageous what happened on this article.

I also noted how little legal or other education people have who contribute on Wikipedia and how biased they are. It is the encyclopedia of the red necks.

I am sure that Wikipedia is being sued by a couple of people, and it is just a matter of time. Your policies will not save you from having to pay damages and from having to return the donations.

Either you organize the arbitration team or I expose Wikipedia even more on Usenet.

Enjoy this: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=gmail&q=wikipedia%20sucks http://groups.google.com/groups?q=wikipedia%20sucks&num=30&hl=en&lr=&safe=active&sa=N&tab=wg http://groups.google.com/groups?q=wikipedia%2Bbarbara%20schwarz&num=30&hl=en&lr=&safe=active&sa=N&tab=wg

I can't make Wikipedia and their criminal constibutors to operate within the laws, but I sure can spread the word as to what is going on here and what a time consuming libel machine it is.

Wikipedia makes victims, Ms. Wash and Board members, and this has to stop.

Barbara Schwarz

On 9/9/05, Wikipedia information team <info-en@wikimedia.org> wrote:

Geocities just wrote to me that they took Sharp's website down, as he forged and defamed others and me. Feel free to ask Geocities. But Wikipedia wants to keep the garbage on?

[edit] =======

Re: Abuse by http://www.geocities.com/martysharpgolf/ (KMM21415227V27261L0KM) Inbox

Yahoo! Geocities  to me
More options   9:58 am (5 hours ago)

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.

Thank you for informing us of possible abuse on Yahoo! GeoCities. We have investigated the site and taken the necessary action. Please continue to notify us of any content you believe violates the GeoCities Terms of Service, located at:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/geoterms.html

Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.

Regards,

Yahoo! Customer Care http://www.yahoo.com/

15177189

Original Message Follows:

Hello Geocities team.

Marty Sharp forged several people in his Geocities website. Please cancel it. None of the people he cites want to be referred to the websites he linked us to.

I am asking you to cancel this website: http://www.geocities.com/martysharpgolf/

He also violated a gentleman's privacy by putting his home addresss on the site and he insults him with a chimp photo.

Please cancel this site as soon as right away. Don't let abuse happen. Violation of privacy and forgeries are crimes under the law.

Thanks,

B. Schwarz

[edit] ==========

Wikipedia executives, here is more:

And what about death threat maker Garry Scarff? He spoke many death threats out against me and forged thousands of postings in my name. Google his name and learn! He is now a Wikipedia "contributor"! http://groups.google.com/groups?q=garry%20scarff&num=30&hl=en&lr=&safe=active&sa=N&tab=wg

I ask you again to take that article off and not ask criminals to vote on it.

Barbara Schwarz

WIKIPEDIA BOARD AND INFORMATION CENTER ALLOWS ABUSE, LIBEL, INSULTS OF BARBARA SCHWARZ WHO IS NO PUBLIC FIGURE PER U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION.

Read below my correspondence with Wikipedia Bord, (Angela) Kate Walsh, and these words in quotation marks were mailed by me to a long time Wikipedia insider:

"Kate Walsh's response to you is very superficial. In her response she says that she sent impartial people who advised her the article was suitably neutral and the claims made were suitably verifiable. They are incompetent I tell you. I ran into this kind of incompetence when unqualified person filed an arbitration "against" me. Their unprofessional volunteers are totally untrained members of the Wikipedia community. If their emotional reactions to you are hate, then they do not treat you fairly. Most I have encountered are too subjective to be impartial. Some people in Wikipedia are very fair, I'll try to see if any of one on the list or arbitratrators is someone who I have had a good experience with.

And here is Jimbo Wales talk page on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimbo_Wales"

Below is some more of my correspondence with the Wikipedia executives.

Barbara Schwarz

[edit] =

Angela and Kate,

How come you have not called in a group of impartial observers? Below was suggested bys omebody in the defamatory and corrupt article on me.

Barbara Schwarz

[edit] ==

From: Wikipedia information team <info-en@wikimedia.org> Mailed-By: wikimedia.org

Thank you for your mail.

Barbara Schwarz <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

If you do wish to pursue avenues of dispute resolution, they are detailed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

Sincerely, Kat Walsh

-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org

[edit] =======

From: Barbara Schwarz <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com>

Ms. Kate Walsh and all Board members,

Wikipedia is defaming me and stealing my time.

Who are trusted editors? There are none. A few good people are immediately overpowered by the Wikipedia Scientologists hating mob. They are like Nazis.

One of these gang members blocked even that anybody can make changes. Is that free speech? Wikipedia could be Stalin's property, it is so outrageous what happened on this article.

I also noted how little legal or other education people have who contribute on Wikipedia and how biased they are. It is the encyclopedia of the red necks.

I am sure that Wikipedia is being sued by a couple of people, and it is just a matter of time. Your policies will not save you from having to pay damages and from having to return the donations.

Either you organize the arbitration team or I expose Wikipedia even more on Usenet.

I can't make Wikipedia and their criminal constibutors to operate within the laws, but I sure can spread the word as to what is going on here and what a time consuming libel machine it is.

Wikipedia makes victims, Ms. Wash and Board members, and this has to stop.

Barbara Schwarz

On 9/9/05, Wikipedia information team <info-en@wikimedia.org> wrote:

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/Talk%7EBarbara_Schwarz_Geocities_2999.html"