"history-computer.com" web site: what do you do with people like this? / was: IBM memory

Regarding this "history-computer.com" web site of one Georgi Dalakov: The Whirlwind article on history-computer.com referenced in the IBM memory thread contains this: ... Construction of the machine started in 1948, an effort that employed 175 people, including 70 engineers and technicians. Whirlwind took 3 years to build and first went online on April 20, 1951. The project's budget was $1 million a year, and after three years the Navy had lost interest. However, during this time the Air Force had become interested in using computers to help the task of ground controlled interception (the Cold War just began), and the Whirlwind was the only machine suitable to the task. ... ( http://history-computer.com/**ModernComputer/Electronic/** Whirlwind.html<http://history-computer.com/ModernComputer/Electronic/Whi…) The Whirlwind article on Wikipedia contains this: ... Construction of the machine started the next year, an effort that employed 175 people including 70 engineers and technicians. Whirlwind took three years to build and first went online on April 20, 1951. The project's budget was $1 million a year, and after three years the Navy had lost interest. However, during this time the Air Force had become interested in using computers to help the task of ground controlled interception, and the Whirlwind was the only machine suitable to the task. ... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Whirlwind_(computer)<http://en.wikipedia.…) There are no references or sources cited in the history-computer.comarticle. On the "sources" page for the site there is a simple global reference to "Wikipedia". While one might question who is copying who or if they have a common author, some indication is provided by another example: Just a few days ago I ended up at the history-computer.com article about Edmund Berkeley's Simon machine: http://history-computer.com/**ModernComputer/Personal/Simon.**html<http:… I've investigated and written about Simon in some depth, so I was interested in what someone else might have to say about it. The article begins with some standard biography of Berkeley, but as I was reading the technical description of Simon, various sentences started to sound very familiar: the technical bits are a wholesale rip-off of my own writing: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~hilpert/**e/simon/index.html<http://www.cs.ubc.ca/… http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~hilpert/**e/simon/def.html<http://www.cs.ubc.ca/%7… A third of Dalakov's article is a cut-and-paste effort of entire paragraphs, sentences and themes lifted straight from my article, with some occasional rephrasing and reorganisation to fit it into his article. No links, references or attributions are given to my article or site (not surprising - one wouldn't want to make it easy for others to spot such plagiarism.) Dalakov is simply ripping off other people's writings and efforts. While word-for-word plagiarism is bad enough, the cut-and-paste mixing of material means context and accuracy can be lost. It is not original work and his site is nothing to place any reliance on.