Talk:Eric Schmidt

Sounds like Google PR piece.

Nothing wrong with having an article about this person, if it were properly wikified. RickK 07:48, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have some interesting materials to add, like Eric's Novell history and history at Sun. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this article sounds a lot less like a Google PR piece with peacock terms now. I will run down the remaining sources tommorrow. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I reverted them, before having seen your comment above. Wikipedia isn't the place to get revenge on one of your former bosses, and certainly not without sourcing your allegations. If you want to put some of it back with proper sources, then fine, but please don't abuse those sources either - you ripped that fastcompany.com quote so far out of context that it had a completely different meaning here from the quote in the original article. --Aim Here 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No COI Here. I have not had dealings with Eric since 1997, in fact, I never worked for him as I had left Novell before he was appointed. The materials come from industry sources and public comments. So your comments about Eric being a former boss are entirely inaccurate. I am sure a lot of folks know who Eric is. Other than a single line about Novell, I thought it better to flush out the entire section. I will work on the other sections as well, including his personal life, divorce from his previous wife, and other public materials. His report card on dragging Novell from a leadership role into a failing company role belongs here. Based upon industry reports at the time, Schmidt seriously harmed Novell through his inept management practices. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, he wasn't your boss. I was confused because, on the LKML, you claim that you filed a lawsuit that claimed that Eric "and another executive at Novell" sexually harassed you, which was "Part of the reason [you] left Novell", which sounds to me as though he was an executive while you were working there. I must have read that wrong, but it still seems CoI material --Aim Here 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This morbid fascination with following me around the site simply to revert edits and post trolling comments appears to be a something WP:HARRASS addresses. Given our history, I think it would be wise for you to avoid me from now on. I do feel intimidated and your presence makes me uncomfortable with editing here. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Grow up Jeff. I saw problems with just *one* of your many edits since you came back (I haven't even read the others), and you accuse me of stalking you. --Aim Here 20:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Right, I'll ennumerate the specific problems with this article, so that they can be addressed. Jeff's getting very protective of his edits, and I've been reverted twice today:

While at Sun Microsystems, Eric Schmidt was interviewed by Fast Company, a Silicon Valley News Agency. During the interview, Eric Schmidt indicated he believed that "sex" oriented businesses were the future of the computing industry. Several months after these interviews were published, Schmidt was recruited by Novell to the CEO position. One notable excerpt from these interviews:

...Eric Schmidt, Sun's chief technology officer, is leaning back in a plush executive chair. Eric is thinking about sex. A smile is on his lips, and a deep, satisfied light radiates from his eyes. He has grasped a liberating truth: sex -- not microchips and software -- is the key to the future of business. Eric Schmidt's job at Sun is to spawn and nurture new businesses. For Eric, organizational sex is a rich, vibrant topic. His days are often spent in flirtations -- and sometimes full-fledged assignations -- with new companies and their founders. What he tries to do is create a union of the fertile ideas of rebels and visionaries and the organizational DNA of Sun. [4]

This is pretty much undue weight to some random buzzword in a random interview, placed in the article to give the impression that Schmidt is some sort of sex maniac, and merely putting the word 'sex' in inverted commas doesn't do anywhere near enough to give the Wikipedia reader some idea of what the article is talking about. I reckon everything quoted above should go. The next paragraph (about attempting to kill Java) needs citations.

Everything in the 'Novell' section needs a citation.

Furthermore:

These businesses then became major suppliers of video servers and c

aching servers with a large percentage of the customer base being affiliated with the adult entertainment industry and sex video oriented businesses.

This looks like an undue weight on matters sexual again, and it needs to be well cited. I'm guessing that Novell doesn't do proportionally more business with pornographers than any other computer software firm.

Due to a serious tactical error on Schmidt's part...

POV. I seem to recall that Canopy won and paid Novell a heathy sum too, so I'd be surprised if you could even find a quorum of sources claiming that this was much of a tactical error.

...and departure of key technologists from the company, coupled with lawsuits and allegations in US District Court, District of Utah of Sexual Harrassment and Retaliation by Novell Executives during Schmidt's administration.

Ahem. Conflict of Interest and undue weight - the editor was an active participant in the events refered herein. This needs reliable secondary sources saying that these events were at all significant in Schmidt's career. The particular phrasing of the edit could well pose WP:BLP problems too. --Aim Here 20:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It would appear your sole justification for challenging my edits here are some basis where you believe there is a conflict of interest, and this is your sole stated reasons for page blanking my edits to the article, and removing credible verified and reliable sources. Schmidt sued dozens of key technologists at Novell and ran them out of the company, this is a matter of record. There were also multiple lawsuits (Ken Anderson and others) filed against the company alleging Sexual Harassment as a result of Schmidt's attempts to push Novell into the internet porn business. This coupled your with comments on my talk page that you intend to have "any edits I make deleted from Wikipedia" clearly fall within WP:HARRASS. This is the last time I will politely ask to to avoid me on this site. Your presence is disruptive and your sole stated purpose is to harrass another editor. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, Jeff. I gave a number of justifications for my problems with your edits in this article. You put hardly any sources in the parts of the article I quote above, and the one source there was a misleading out-of-context quote that doesn't back up the statements in the article. As for your assertion 'this is a matter of record', and 'Schmidt's attempts to push Novell into the internet porn business' please cite verifiable, credible, secondary sources. Ditto for 'multiple lawsuits (Ken Anderson and others) filed against the company alleging Sexual Harassment' - "Ken Anderson" +Novell + "Sexual Harrassment" gets 5 unrelated ghits. And please reread what I wrote on your talk page. I merely said that the fastcompany.com quote would be deleted, not 'any edits you make'. And I've never stated that any of my purposes here is to harass any editor. Sigh, Jeff, I was rather hoping that your sabbatical from Wikipedia would have taught you something about how to comport yourself here, but it looks like you've learned nothing. --Aim Here 00:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than arguing Jeff, just provide cites for your edits. It should be simple, right? Otherwise they all just fail WP:NPOV.. Jerry (Talk) 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with User:Aim Here's concerns about User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's edits here, and further agree with his recommendations as to which parts should be taken out and which parts need citation. I am certainly no single-purpose account, and my motivation is certainly not harassment (as I have never had any interaction with this user), but a sense that the edits do not meet WP standards for citations, NPOV, and in the case of the "sex" quotations especially, undue weight. More caution in editing and less haste in accusing others of bad faith or harassment would be warranted on User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's part, in my opinion, especially when as in this case there have been no personal attacks but level-headed, substantive criticism of certain contributions. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you do not have all the history of these accounts. They are troll accounts from SCOX. Their goal here is for one purpose -- harassing me and being disruptive. But that is beside the point. I will not edit this article any longer. Instead, I have placed a $1000.00 bounty on its improvement to to featured status. So the rest of you can get busy and get it to that point. (You will very quickly see these editors have no intention of providing anything constructive -- they will leave and follow me to the next article and resume their conduct.) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not who is the editor, rather what is the output is what's being looked at. You made a large number of edits to an article you had an obvious COI with and didn't source any of them and then argued and threatened and complained when the most basic rules of NPOV, NOR, NPA, NLT, BLP are asked to be followed. No editors get passes in these situations and it's telling that you think that you should get a pass. Perhaps a reread of the basic editing policies for newby editors is in order?

Sorry, but I'm not a troll. Just someone who wants to make sure that WP:NPOV is adhered to, and as Jeff is a former employee of Novell, his Point of View is suspect. It should be *simple* to provide cites if all the edits are true Jerry (Talk) 05:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. There is the content. I put up the money. All of this material can be found on the stock boards, and industry pubs for the years mentioned. You also have a PACER account and can look up the lawsuits filed against Novell for the past 15 years or so. Good Luck. I won't hold my breath though. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the history of the Novell-Canopy litigation is available on Groklaw, with the documents and a quote from Novell's PR guy explaining the case here The outcome of the litigation was that Novell prevailed and Canopy had to pay Novell [1] You can verify by contacting: Nancy Volmer, Public Information Office, Administrative Office of the Courts,(801) 578-3994. Or contact Salt Lake District Court at 801-238-7830 and ask them about the outcome of the case. It's Case 20030211. Appellate. 2004 UT App 162. Filed May 13, 2004. 4th District, Provo, Utah. The Honorable Anthony Schofield. Since Novell prevailed, it was obviously not a tactical mistake to sue Canopy. Mr. Merkey's most recent business venture, Solera, is funded by Canopy Group. [2][3] Since Mr. Schmidt is a living person, what I suggest you do is present the materials Mr. Merkey has added here to Mr. Schmidt and see if he thinks it's libelous. At least that way you'd give the man a chance to clear his name. I don't know either Mr. Merkey or Mr. Schmidt and I'm not a lawyer, but I think I can spot libel when I see it. And unless you and Mr. Merkey can prove in a court of law that everything he wrote is factually true, and I've just demonstrated that you can't, it's not all right to leave such accusations up for any length of time, I don't think. Has anyone let Wales know? 82.248.104.43

You don't have to do all that work to get the ruling in the Novell-Canopy case. It is right here [4] I agree this material should not be left even on a talk page. The part about imagining Schmidt leaning back in his chair and smiling as he thinks about sex... it's obviously fantasy. How would you prove that? I find it interesting that when Microsoft was supportive of SCO, Merkey attacked everyone on the Linux side of that issue, including with libelous claims. Now that Microsoft is going after Google, here comes Merkey with libelous claims about Google's CEO. The question a court may ask Wikipedia is: why do you allow this person with this history to edit at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.179.6.212 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

You verify it the way you'd verify any article from any half-reputable magazine; which is to say you don't - they're paid to do the research, not you, and anything else is OR> --Gwern (contribs) 18:38 6 May 2007 (GMT)

Right enough, I've always agreed that it's sourced and verifiable, but how encyclopedic is a quote about Schmidt lying back in a chair and thinking about "sex" (here it doesn't mean what the word sex usually means, but it appears to be a failed attempt at inventing a horrible corporate jargonism). Would anyone who searched Wikipedia for Eric Schmidt care to know about what he thinks about in his chair in his office? If there's anything significantly more than this one article linking Schmidt and 'organisational sex', then this 'organisational sex' stuff might warrant some sort of mention, but you'll note that Wikipedia doesn't consider the phrase noteworthy enough for an article, or even a wiktionary entry. Given that, and the other unsourced edits by the same editor (who seems to have worked with and/or been involved in litigation with Schmidt) referring to pornography and sexual harassment, I think you have to worry about some sort of agenda-driven POV-push. --Aim Here 19:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a dangling "</ref>" available in the body of the text, around third paragraph down. I can't seem to find what's wrong with it. Fixed it. --RWilliamKing 19:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two things on this page which need citations. First of all, evidence that Schmidt was a co-creator of lex, and secondly, the part under the Trivia section about his $1723 holiday bonus (the current citation mentions nothing about this). Is this an Illuminati reference? Foolingmachine 06:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Schmidt as co-author of lex is adequately documented on Wikipedia. But "part-time professor" at Stanford -- how is that considered part of his education? Was he a professor there or did was he just invited to lecture for some classes? There are news references to the latter, at least, but nothing in the "education" period that I know of. This is scrambled chronology at best. Yakushima (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sun Microsystem as CTO

While at Sun Microsystems, Eric Schmidt was interviewed by Fast Company, a Silicon Valley News Agency. During the interview, Eric Schmidt indicated he believed that "sex" oriented businesses were the future of the computing industry. Several months after these interviews were published, Schmidt was recruited by Novell to the CEO position. One notable excerpt from these interviews:

...Eric Schmidt, Sun's chief technology officer, is leaning back in a plush executive chair. Eric is thinking about sex. A smile is on his lips, and a deep, satisfied light radiates from his eyes. He has grasped a liberating truth: sex -- not microchips and software -- is the key to the future of business. Eric Schmidt's job at Sun is to spawn and nurture new businesses. For Eric, organizational sex is a rich, vibrant topic. His days are often spent in flirtations -- and sometimes full-fledged assignations -- with new companies and their founders. What he tries to do is create a union of the fertile ideas of rebels and visionaries and the organizational DNA of Sun.

Thank you

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		To Eric E. Schmidt for the time being. I don't know if you read this article or its talk page. Shared barnstar 1 of 3. Thanks to my hometown (Wikimedia image), to Ask.com, and to a Wikipedia user for teaching me to share barnstars and be polite. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fast Company

How is this stupid excerpt even relevant to this guy? I hate reading this sort of agenda laiden schwag when I am trying to research a person. Seriously, get over your weird issues, idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.24.121 (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Violations of WP:BLOCK and/or WP:SOCK

Per User:Werdna/JVM Block, Jeff Merkey the person (not just the account) is banned from WP forever. Follow the link on Werdna's sub-page to the AN/I for a discussion of how the IP address is determined to be Jeff. Then per WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK, 166.70.238.44 is de facto banned.

Can we get an admin to put in a hard IP block? And then checkuser the IP for any sockpuppet accounts?

rm edits of banned user, per policy. Paul Fagerburg Sockpuppet (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)