Gary Null Complains to the IRS about the WMF

[tarantino]

http://prn.fm/wp-content/uploads/2019/0 ... pdated.pdf

I am writing to report on the activities of a major tax-exempt organization that is in violation of its tax-exempt nonprofit charity status. Although this letter is being written on behalf of Dr. Gary Null, the illegal and/or improper actions set forth below have affected the lives of millions of people worldwide. This letter accompanies a completed form 13909 - Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) and should be considered supporting documentation.

The Wikimedia Foundation, a California not-for-profit corporation, doing business as Wikipedia ("Wikipedia") is in violation of its tax-exempt status in ways that flaunt the IRS rules in a scheme to evade the payment of millions of dollars in federal taxes. In particular:

It then goes in to particulars.

[Kumioko]

He makes a lot of really good points and even Cites Greg Kohs...Nice find!

It really surprises me he doesn't really discuss the history of Minassian media and the ties to the Clinton foundation at all in that.

[Midsize Jake]

He makes a lot of really good points and even Cites Greg Kohs...Nice find!

They even repeat the exact same text about him, with the cite, twice on the same page (p.7)!

I wonder who actually wrote this letter? I can't imagine Greenfield writing it himself, and I also doubt that it was written by Helen Buyinski, who made an appearance here in our previous Gary Null thread - it's waaaay too right-wing, and it doesn't mention Russia at all. Whoever it is, maybe they're assuming the IRS guys are all Trump people now, and they'd just tear up anything that isn't written from a die-hard Trump rally-goer perspective, like this is.

Also, for anyone interested in Dr. Null's motivations for all this, this handy PDF explains it all in exhaustive detail. It's another example of how an opt-out policy would be good policy, assuming Wikipedians were really interested in producing an encyclopedia and not running a free revenge and/or "quack-shaming" platform.

[Smiley]

Gary Null, who was poisoned by his own health supplement, sure hates Wikipedia.

WICKED, WICKED WIKIPEDIA: THE CORRUPTION AND COLLAPSE OF THE LEGENDARY PEOPLE’S ENCYCLOPEDIA.

Cochram spent his time on his personal Facebook page that was found to be filled with obscenities, sexism, and racist and Islamophobic remarks. In his first posts in the Wikipedia discussions arguing about the ban, he indicated Wales would approve of the decision.

Curiously, the Mail article, which is where he's got this from, doesn't mention sexism.

One imagines he balked somewhat at the thought of "two gay men performing a sex act in public, a photograph of a naked, dark-haired man having oral sex with himself, and a painting that depicts bestiality between a man and a sheep."

[Midsize Jake]

Curiously, the Mail article, which is where he's got this from, doesn't mention sexism.

It mentions his use of the term "appetising vaginas" though, which is kinda sexist I guess, since he could have just left it at "70 wives."

For a bit of context, our earlier thread about the Daily Mail article in question is here.

[Smiley]

Curiously, the Mail article, which is where he's got this from, doesn't mention sexism.

It mentions his use of the term "appetising vaginas" though, which is kinda sexist I guess, since he could have just left it at "70 wives."

For a bit of context, our earlier thread about the Daily Mail article in question is here.

Hey! Don't blame me, blame the Muslims!

Or Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri#cite_note-26

Al-Suyuti. Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur'an. p. 351. "Each time we sleep with a Houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetizing vaginas."

[Poetlister]

The WMF cannot control everything on Wikipedia, and it's silly to pretend that it can. We've recently seen how Facebook, with vastly greater resources, struggled to get rid of all copies of the video of the New Zealand massacre. Is that grounds for removing the WMF's tax-free status? No doubt many people here would hope so.

[Kumioko]

The WMF cannot control everything on Wikipedia, and it's silly to pretend that it can. We've recently seen how Facebook, with vastly greater resources, struggled to get rid of all copies of the video of the New Zealand massacre. Is that grounds for removing the WMF's tax-free status? No doubt many people here would hope so.

Oh, me, pick me!

[LynnWysong]

Also, for anyone interested in Dr. Null's motivations for all this, this handy PDF explains it all in exhaustive detail. It's another example of how an opt-out policy would be good policy, assuming Wikipedians were really interested in producing an encyclopedia and not running a free revenge and/or "quack-shaming" platform.

Interesting point. Seems like an encyclopedia wouldn't include living persons unless they were so notable it could not. Say, a president, or Nobel prize winner, or something to that effect. People are usually judged after their deaths on the whole of their accomplishments, and when Gary Null dies, everything he did will die with him, except as mentions on tangential subjects.

[disembodied cat head]

that letter looks awfully familiar...
i do wish that Gary would either file the lawsuit or stop talking about it, though, as he is coming off a bit boy-who-cried-wolf here. he really does intend to write (have other people write) hundreds more articles about Wikipedia, & it seems to me it would be to their advantage to just delete his article so he goes away.
(but the Guy Chapmans of the world are intent on keeping it around, in its defective state, & banning anyone who tinkers with it. i would hate to meet such a person in a dark alley)

[greyed.out.fields]

http://prn.fm/wp-content/uploads/2019/0 ... pdated.pdf

...
The Wikimedia Foundation, a California not-for-profit corporation, doing business as Wikipedia ("Wikipedia") is in violation of its tax-exempt status in ways that flaunt the IRS rules in a scheme to evade the payment of millions of dollars in federal taxes. In particular:

...

People who don't know the difference between "flaunt" and "flout" should... I dunno, not use the word "flaunt" perhaps?

[Poetlister]

Interesting point. Seems like an encyclopedia wouldn't include living persons unless they were so notable it could not. Say, a president, or Nobel prize winner, or something to that effect. People are usually judged after their deaths on the whole of their accomplishments, and when Gary Null dies, everything he did will die with him, except as mentions on tangential subjects.

Yes, many people would agree with that policy. It would save a lot of problems, although it would make the work far less useful. The Wikipedia view is that notability is perpetual, so that if someone was clearly notable in the past, he or she still is today.