Talk:Matrix scheme/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Work with us here, dude. --Gary D 08:35, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Request for Review - NEUTRALITY

Speaking for myself personally, I welcome the opportunity for an external party to examine this article. I know that I myself am probably too close to be truly neutral, and many others feel too strongly in the other direction to be neutral too. Therefore, perhaps a 3rd party is the way forward.

I agree with them that this article has become too long-winded and is a bit of a mess.

Cybertrax June 24, 2006


I have requested mediation in order to try and resolve this situation. I am unhappy that people are unable to have intelligent discussion on this article before placing their points of view on the main page. I think we need a 3rd party involved.

Cybertrax June 27, 2006

I have a lot of problems with this article

Whether or not a 'matrix site' is a worthwhile means of investment or not notwithstanding, these articles are supposed to be from a neutral point of view. When the first sentence of an article is "such and such is a non sustainable business model", I think neutrality rather goes out the window right off the bat.

I've perused this 'matrixwatch' site. And while I've found a lot of the content to be highly informative and useful, I think it does tend to fall victim to its own propaganda machine to a point. It seems the largest matrix site discussions (remember, these sites are supposedly 'non sustainable business models') are around sites that have seemingly been around for years (such as 'gotmatrix'). I saw thread after thread of the members of this site speaking matter-of-factly of the site's imminent demise as far back as over 2 years ago, but when I plugged the URL into my browser, up it came. It's very much still in business. I tried various other ones that I found in quick search engine queries and again had no problem finding many that were up and running--again, after many years. On the contrary, it seems as though this site has abandoned the whole concept of going against these sites in favor of multi-level-marketing advertising things (I'm not entirely sure what the concept behind the YMMSS thing everyone over there is talking about is). If these sites are still active, then by definition they're sustainable.

It appears as though the 'anti-matrix' crowd has made some attempt at making this article neutral...while tinting even the pro-matrix concessions they have made with negative sentiment. The converse is not held true, however...in a sentence/section that is purely anti-matrix, there is no balancing pro-matrix POV. Looking at the history of the article, I see many instances of people attempting to correct this--only to find the article reverted back to its prior revision a short while later by the 'opposing' side. The most striking of which (to me) was under the "legality" header, first paragraph. It puts in the pro-matrix view of these sites being legal, but follows it up with a rebuke about the claims being challenged in courts, and then goes on to state some warnings have been issued. While the warnings are clearly there (and rightly so, from what I can tell), it appears as though the only "challenges" to the legality of these sites is from the members of this 'matrixwatch' site. And, contrary to the tone of that first paragraph and what it insinuates, after doing a quick search on the legality of these sites I had no problems finding information that states they are legal but walk a fine line, and could not find any rulings by which these sites were ever found to be illegal (at least in America). Furthermore, after reading the 'matrixwatch' site, I find it hard to believe that there is even a discussion to outlaw these sites, as the dollar values for the 'gotmatrix' site alone are rather staggering and would have assuredly drawn the attention of regulating bodies by now...especially with all the complaints the 'matrixwatch' crowd has supposedly heaped upon that company.

The above are just the most obvious conflicts in neutrality with this article. There are so many others, it's hard to even count them. The whole thing is a mess. If ever there was an article/history that was worthy of just being completely stricken from the books just to be done with it so to speak, this one would be it. While I would never give 2 cents to one of these sites, it doesn't really change the fact that this article has basically been contorted into something of a propaganda piece for this 'matrixwatch' site (especially since many of the "sources" for this article are from the site itself) and that there is an organised effort from this site to keep it that way. It needs a lot of work and, like the sites or not, those of you who have organised from the 'matrixwatch' are going to have to make concessions to make this article neutral even if you disagree with some of what belongs in it (and doesn't, as the case more frequently is). The beauty of neutrality is that there's an equal amount of things for everybody to disagree with. This article doesn't do that.

Samoyed June 25, 2006


I agree with what you have said. I have in the past along with others tried to rebalance the article, but have been called a vandal, and so had to 'let' most of the disputed comments go. This is one of the main problems with any Wiki, as anyone can be an editor. Is there any senior 'moderator'-style persons that could sort it out? I believe that if this article was deleted or altered in any way to take away the negative slant, it would just be reverted back by the anti-matrix crowd.

Cybertrax June 25, 2006

I find it ironic that both Samoyed and Cybertrax would join together at this venture. It is clear that they both serve to propegate the further scam of Matrix schemes. The recent edits clearly try to provide legitimacy to this scam and seem to try and remove the aspect that such schemes are mathmatically impossible to maintain, even if outside revenue were to be used these sites still cannot be self-sustaining.

It seems to me that both Samoyed and Cybertrax have a hard time understanding the difference between NPOV and fact. Since the article in it's previous arrangement was FACT yet didn't agree to their misguided POV they then must claim the article to be NPOV. I propose the article be restored to the pre-June format, just becuase you don't beleive in it does not change the fact that it is fact.

Arzel 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is my belief that Cybertrax and Samoyed are the same person. It is well known that Cybertrax is very good at creating multiple identies, and this situation and some of Samoyed's comments are very much Cybertrax like. Arzel 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Arzel, take your own advice. You claim that any attempt to balance it out to show the argument for BOTH sides without key words and buzz words is POV, yet the way you have tried to have this particular article written is neutral and NPOV. Heck, even your discussion is loaded with unproven fact and theorization (your comment regarding 'outside revenue cannot make a site self-sustaining'). It's a ludicrous statement. I wouldn't suggest that it doesn't hold true more often than not, but to state that the business model is so flawed that should it get injected with 5 thousand dollars of advertising revenue a month it could not sustain is, to be blunt, idiotic. I don't know how much alternate revenue these older sites draw in, but they are clearly doing something by which to keep themselves going, if not necessarily moving along these 'bonus' lists at a satisfactory clip. I explained line by line what I changed and why I changed it. If you consider those changes POV, then you are perhaps too close to the article to be objective in any manner. The way the article was written was not factual--it was loaded with insinuations and gossipy-like ranting, and was clearly designed as a piece by which to assail the model. Your contention that Cybertrax and I are the same individual isn't even deserving of retort, so I'll just let your blind accusation of that speak for itself with regards to how "open" and/or "neutral" you claim to be Samoyed 28 June 2006

The fact that you claim Matrixwatch reference to be POV and support the POV Cybertrax reference is further link to your personal POV. Where did you come from? Why suddenly the advanced interest in Matrix sites? How did you come accros such a similar based knowledge as Cybertrax? Why is your phrasing and mannerism so similar? If you are not him, you are working in concert with him. Arzel 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Arzel, please remember this discussion is about a FACTUAL article and is not a place to get personal. Attacks on a persons character are not appreciated and are not allowed.

Samoyed and myself are not connected physically in any way shape or form. Until a few days ago I had not heard of them. Certainly, we are not different user ID's of the same person! Having said that, it was the shameful way you reverted their attempt at restoring neutrility to the article that prompted me to bring in 3rd party mediators. I hope that you show more respect to them than you have done in the past to myself and others here.

I think you will find that your comments are simply showing your blinker-eyes when discussing this subject. It is often a good idea to accept new ideas and opinons, and show respect to those that have differing views, even if you disagree with them. Once again, please remember to try and show respect to all members of Wikipedia.

Cybertrax 18:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to show respect to someone that has earned none. The minute you chose to have Matrixwatch Ltd as your company name (obviously a play off the Matrixwatch.org site to try and drive your personal finanical interest in these scams, you lost all credibility and respect. Arzel 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Please refer to the following Wikipedia policies:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will rarely help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.

Assume good faith on the part of the newcomer. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!

Civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is the only principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility.

Cybertrax 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Trimming and balancing edits

I've made some preliminary edits to this article. Among them includes:

1) Removed the phrase "non-sustainable" from the first sentence of the article. There are clearly instances of matrix sites that have been around for years, and show no signs of going out of business. By definition, their model must be sustainable.

--This is probably the most flawed arguement that I have ever heard. By this arguement one could say that the sun will never run out of fuel because it hase been around for billions of years. Arzel 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

2) Renamed the first sentence from "matrix scheme" to "matrix site". Also removed the phrase "elevator scheme". The intended imagery of the word "scheme" is clearly placed in order to convey an opinion and disrupt balance in the article.

--Untrue, Elevator scheme is also used many times in reference to Matrix Schemes (See YMMSS) Arzel 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

3) Removed reference that alternate revenue streams such as advertising revenue cannot keep a matrix site afloat. This is clearly conjecture and not an across-the-board fact. While I do not know the 'other methods' used by these sites to draw in additional revenue, I do know that advertising revenue on a popular web site can be substantial.

--Untrue. Due to the mathmatical nature of the Matrix scheme, it will eventually approach an infinate debt situation. At this point it would be impossible to sustain, regardless of outside revenue. Arzel 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

4) Slightly modified the paragraph with the "numbers" of how many people can list out in a matrix site. Removed the statements that the list must collapse, but added quantifiers that without sufficient revenue streams, the list will essentially go stagnate.

5) Altered the paragraph that correlates matrix sites to pyramid schemes. Altered the phrase "in most cases" to "in certain cases" to describe the worth of the items being sold on these sites. Worth or value of an item (such as electronic books) is a relative term, and to say that "most" of the products being sold aren't "worth" what they're being sold for is a misnomer. A product is "worth" whatever A) someone is willing to pay for the item and B) what the merchant indicates it is worth. If a buyer doesn't consider the product to be of good value, the consumer will not purchase, and an item is not "worth" that amount. Again, relativity. The argument that the consumer is purchasing what they do not consider to be good value to be placed on a list has no bearing on the fact the merchant has placed a value of X dollars on an item.

--You are providing your own person point of view, and thus your edits are completely self-serving. It is a fact that in most cases individuals would purchase the same e-book or other item for the purpose of having multiple position on the matrix list. It is clear in these instances that the item is of no value, especially in the case of ebooks. Arzel 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

6) I've almost completely altered the "Legality" header for this article. As there are no rulings or laws in the United States which outlaw matrix sites, the onus and burden is therefore on the detractors and challengers to the matrix model. The way the first paragraph was previously written was done in such a way to state that matrix owners claim the sites to be legal, but that (they're essentially wrong). This is backwards. Since the sites are not illegal in the United States, the article should read that the sites are legal, but the legality of them is being challenged, not the other way around.

--WRONG, there is no statement that would claim matrix sites to be legal, by your defination, a simple change of an illegal act to a different name would thereby make it legal. Your understanding of law is severely limited, and your edits should be removed. Arzel 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

7) In the section detailing how the UK OFT has ruled on the legality of the sites, changed the wording "has determined them to be scams" to "has determined them to be illegal". The OFT ruled them to be illegal lotteries, not "scams". "Scam" is a buzzword clearly placed in that sentence to convey imagery about the sites themselves. Just because something is illegal does not make it a "scam". Anyone who would disagree with this needs to go read the definition of the word "scam".

--How about illegal scam? Arzel 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

8) Completely removed a paragraph that was centered around Paypal listing the sites as "persona non grata" to do business with their service. The way that paragraph was structured was done so in such a way as to convey yet another negative image based on insinuation. For one, Paypal does not make laws. They simply have terms of service for their business itself so as to limit its potential liability in any matter. Paypal also restricts such items as pornographic materials, Native American goods and I believe event tickets...all of which are readily available and can be purchased on the open market simply by going to a local store in most areas. The fact that Paypal has determined it will not do business with these sites due to the fact that by agreeing to do so would expose them to expensive litigation from challengers of matrix sites does not make the sites any less legal. This paragraph contributed absolutely nothing to the article.

--What? I think it provides a very good point of reference to show how the REAL business world treats these scams. Arzel 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

9) I've removed some references (and thusly, will later have to adjust the article itself to remove the superscript to notate the references, though not the statements themselves). The top 2 references from the 'matrixwatch' site are clearly lacking in any semblance of neutrality and are littered with the same propaganda that has made this article here so incredibly biased. If the 'matrixwatch' site would like to create new pages that outline their reference points...from a neutral point of view, and without all the rhetoric that was contained in those links, it would be a welcome contribution to the article. I also removed the link titled "Pyramid schemes, Ponzi Schemes, and other frauds", as it is a page of editorials (however accurate most of it might be) as opposed to a page of operative fact.

This article needs to stop being so consistently vandalized. And that goes for both sides of this "argument"

--This article was fine until YOU vandilized it with your personal PRO-MATRIX point of view. Arzel 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Difference from a pyramid scheme

I don't quite get how this differs at all from a pyramid scheme. How is the fact that high-end consumer gifts are given to those "winning" seperate it from any other pyramid scheme? It works on the exact same principle... so what gives? Fieari 06:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

From the description given, I'd say that with a pyramid scheme, the layers are explicit, and branches of the pyramid are independant. With a matrix scheme, layering is not easily defined, and branching is non-existant or poorly-defined. --Carnildo 07:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A Matrix is a pryamid of one level, once the level is filled the top is paid and the next person on the list moves to the top and the pryamid starts over. The size of the level is called the cycle time. A Matrix site is really just a Ponzi scheme where later investers pay those that get in early. Go to Matrixwatch.org to find out more, as it is the current description is blatently incorrect.

Carnilo, why do you continue to revert back to the incorrect version of this definition? What is your motivation?

I keep reverting because your edits fall under the classification of simple vandalism. If you want the article changed to define a "matrix scheme" in some other way, make the changes and back them up with citations to a reliable reference. --Carnildo 19:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Reliable reference! We are the reference site, and our link is continualy removed. We have direct links to the court case regarding why these types of businesses are scams and the pro-matrix people continue to vandalize this reference. If you look at the history of this definition you can see that it is continually being altered to wipe any information regarding these scams.

See what I am saying.

What, the link removal I just reverted? That's easy enough to take care of. If the person doing the removal is too persistent, list the page and user on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. --Carnildo 21:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Carnildo. I have updated the reference to a more professional standard and consistant with the current legal status of Matrix sites in the US and UK.

The reason I remove the link is because anyone who spends 5 minutes reading it would realize just how off the map the users of that site are. It continually attempts to distort and otherwise misrepresent factual allegation to suit their own view. Plus that, the site whores itself out for donations. 9 times out of 10 when someone from your site "edits" this listing, it places either completely inaccurate or severely contorted versions of fact to suit an agenda (i.e. this successful "appeal" the site owner had in which the pay processors of matrix sites can be sued again--that site touts it as the "ultimate victory" and an affirmation that the pay sites are/were liable, when that's simply not the case. Just means people can try to sue them again.

Your edited versions also don't paint a complete picture of how working versions of the business model operate i.e. pumping revenue streams from banner advertising and normal retail markup items into the lists to avoid the dreaded "pyramid" effect. The courts have routinely ruled in favor of the matrix sites (right up until the site owners run out of money and can no longer afford to defend appeal after appeal and Complaint after Complaint), yet you persist in stating contrarily. This last version was possibly the worst of all as it attempts to give the impression that the FTC is a governing body of law and placed an implication that because they haven't endorsed matrix sites that it must mean they are stating they are illegal. The FTC's never endorsed a credit counselling service either. Are you going to claim those are illegal as well? Anyhow, keep at it...I make my own hours. I can fix your misrepresentations all day long. Rather irks me that the site you keep trying to plug takes donations for the purposes of attempting to tie up these sites in frivolous litigation and as a result ends up harming a lot of people who would otherwise receive gifted products.

As requested, I've spent five minutes browsing MatrixWatch.org. Then, on my own initiative, I've spent another five minutes browsing it. I find it highly relevant to this article. It explains exactly how a matrix site works -- and why no amount of pumping advertising dollars in will avoid the pyramid effect. --Carnildo 06:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No, what it does is claim just about anything and everything is a scam. Again, the business model itself isn't flawed so long as it's done well...just few decide to. That place has a distinct ring of a religious cult. The entire basis for that site is so that the owner can file frivolous claims against various sites he's not even purchased into seeking damages he doesn't have. Furthermore, as stated, they have this nasty propensity of passing off personal opinions as legal facts.

Unfortunately your edit, while removing the Matrixwatch.org link, is also not true. You have no facts regarding lawsuits being dismissed against EzExpo, yet we have the appelate ruling for the case which ruled against EzExpo. We also have the mathmatical models and theory behind the math on our site. Who is being more biased? We who have nothing finacial to gain or someone like you, who most likely owns one of these matrix scam sites and is trying to use a regarded source of information like Wikipedia to give people a false sense of legality regarding these scams. My latest update didn't even specify that matrix sites where inherently illegal, nor did I alter the pro-matrix point of view and yet you still feel the need to lie to people. Arzel May 27, 2005

There's not a single lie in there. I don't have proof of an EZExpo ruling in their favor? How about the fact that you're touting an APPELLATE ruling that stated the site owner could sue EZ again? Do you know what Appellate means? Look it up....if you're happy about one of those, that means the court ruled in favor of EZ previously. A number of times. It wasn't until the owner of EZ sold the site to someone who couldn't afford litigation costs that the owner of the site even got that far. Same goes for that site's big proclamation that "the battle is finally over" after there was an appeals court that ruled pay processors could be included in litigation they were previously exempted from. It doesn't mean the pay processors are liable for anything or are going to lose any cases (they won't), it means the appeals court ruled the lower court was wrong in its REASONS for dismissing the claims against the processors--and those reasons were fairly weak. Own one? Nope. Your mathematical "models" operate on an assumption that no additional revenue streams will be pumped into the lines. You find the easy-to-spot fly by night operations and point to those as proof. You conveniently "overlook" sites that have put the working business model to applications uch as movemeup.com and ownit4less.net that supplemented the lists with revenue streams from retail purchases and advertising revenue (in the case of ownit4less, the guy shut down all the matrix lines prior to closing the site, went "full" retail and used all the profits to clear the lines out and get everybody gifted before closing down the site so he could focus on college; in the case of movemeup they're still alive and strong). So your "mathematical" models are flawed...and by definition invalid, as there's no room for error in a model. Nothing to gain financially? Your entire site is dedicated to finding anyone who'll let the site's owner in on a lawsuit. That whole site is about financial gain for the owner of the site at the expense of people who are currently on these matrix sites. The sites get shut down, those people are screwed. Yet you claim to be "helping" them...yeah, helping them not get anything. It's downright eerie the tone the members there use. It really does give off the vibe of a cult...it's all rhetoric and "inalienable" faith. The page edit I've put up is fine...it's the compilation of a number of people working to balance it out. Your site link? Not fine. Not staying there. It's skewed, misdirected, and oftentimes loaded with outright fallacies. Get over it--this site isn't going to be a plug for you to draw people in so that you can try and make money off transactions you've never made, and that fella Wilens (looking up his court records, an ambulance chaser if there ever was one) trying to profiteer for tagging along with it. There's a reason he's the only guy who'd take the owner's cases...it's because they're garbage.

A line-by-line analysis of my edits

Supporters claim that additional revenue streams from advertising are used to keep the lists moving'

This is false. The fundamental element of a matrix scheme is a list where the person at the top is removed and given the product when a number of people greater than one are added to the bottom of the list. Since the limiting factor for cycling the list is the number of new people on it, no amount of money can cause everyone on the list to cycle through.

Unlike a pyramid scheme, a side product is delivered to each newcomer in the course of the enrollment purchase.

This is false. Some pyramid schemes use the transfer of a low-value product for a large amount of money to attempt to hide that it's a pyramid scheme.

The legality of matrix schemes is still unclear according to critics, but the courts disagree.

I have seen no evidence that the courts have decided one way or another, at least in the USA.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.K. Trading Standards office have issued warnings to the public about the sites as some are scams, but have deemed them to be legal if run correctly.

I checked the FTC web site. I've found a number of warnings about matrix schemes, but nothing saying they are legal. In particular, the FTC warns against any business model in which "those entering pay for entering, and are rewarded for the recruitment of additional people", as such may be illegal in some or all states. This seems to apply to all matrix systems.

defending lawsuits from a certain group which drain their cash reserves

If you're going to slander someone, do so outright.

such as the ultimately dismissed legal action taken against the grandfather of the matrix site, EZExpo.com

Could you give me a link to indicate that this was dismissed, and on what grounds it was dismissed? As far as I can tell, the complaint against the payment processors for EZExpo.com was dismissed, but the complaint against EZExpo.com itself was decided in favor of the plaintiffs.

The courts have ruled in favor of EZExpo on numerous occasions, but a certain group has shown how burdensome the legal system can be with an array of appeals centered around costing the site as much as possible in legal expenses.

Again, if you're going to slander someone, do it outright. Whispered rumors and implications, without directly naming the subject, are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

http://www.matrixwatch.org

In writing the latest version of the article, I have used this website as a reference. Do not remove the link.

--Carnildo 17:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, you're using personal conjecture and loosely researched opinion to state as fact. The version I keep reverting to is pretty accurate in terms of stating the pro's and con's of them. What this argument basically comes down to is an opinion of slant. You have no firsthand knowledge of them or how they truly work (I listed 2 reference sites that showed exactly how they can be viable if run correctly), so do not act as though you do. As for your "do not remove the link"...um, just where exactly do you feel you have some position to issue an ultimatum? I'm just as much registered and have contributed just as much to the production of the entries on this site (though admittedly I'm too lazy to long in most times). Don't issue directives to me. I believe your interpretation is incorrect and inaccurate. You are not the final authority in this matter, so what we have here is a difference of opinion. What we don't have is a "your opinion is more valid than mine" issue. Re-editing the page again, though will remove "hidden" references to the web site in question that causes all the issues with regards to burdening down the sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.220.100.4 (talk • contribs) .

There's a big difference between a "reference" and an "external link". An "external link" is a link that provides further information on a subject. A "reference" is a web site or other source that was used in creating the article. Removing external links is fine, if the don't meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:external links or if they are inappropriate to the article; references should not be removed. See WP:CITE. --Carnildo 19:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
As for the two sites you mentioned, www.movemenup.com is a simply a matrix scheme that hasn't collapsed yet -- read the FAQ, and you'll see that no amount of ad money can keep the cycle moving. ownit4less.net seems to be a dead link. --Carnildo 19:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow you are venomous, you have even editted a link in SOMEONE ELSES discussion arguement. What is your motivation? You obviously have one since you are ANONYMOUS

Link was www.matrixwatch.org

Arzel 27 May 2005


Points of emphasis regarding my neutrality. I have no financial interest in any matrix site currently or previously existing. I have no financial interest in any competing, similar, or remotely related business, and in fact have no financial interest in any Internet based business at all. I receive no compensation for my work with Matrixwatch.org, my time being completely voluntary. My interest in the matrix model is primary mathematical. I have degrees in business management, marketing, and statistics, and have done extensive research into the underlying mathematical model regarding the matrix model and find it related to the Ponzi model with the only difference being that a product or service is sold in place of the investment position.

The following document http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/dvimf16.htm provides a very good basis for identifying these types of scams, the matrix model tries to circumvent being identified as such by selling a product of questionable value in place of the investment, or stock position. Although the FTC does not specifically state a matrix in it’s documents as such one can easily interpret their findings to apply to the matrix model as well, and this has become a primary point of consternation. The FTC does refer to a pyramid as a matrix in the preceding document, and the linkage between the two is quite obvious. Additionally, because only a certain percentage of customers can be reasonably assured of receiving a free gift the sale of the original product can be viewed as a pseudo lottery ticket and thus the matrix is an illegal lottery, this is also a point of debate. One thing that should not be debated is that the originators of the matrix model simply chose the name matrix to try and cloud the fact that they are really nothing more than a Ponzi or pyramid scheme, and it this fact which allows them to say that the FTC does not declare matrices to be illegal.

Arzel 27 May 2005

Movemeup is just one that hasn't collapsed yet? It's been running for what, 4 years now?

This is one site, how about the hundreds of sites which have been shut down, even still the movemeup site has had little business and appears to be only a shell of what it was. Arzel

As I stated previously, the guy who ran ownit4less shut down to go to school, but did so in a way that everybody got gifted within 6 weeks by devoting all profits from other aspects of the site to pushing the lists through--rather impressive since there was almost 40,000 worth of gifts to be given out at the time.

Where is your proof of this. I find this claim highly dubious. For one, searchs on ownit4less provides only three references, one from the admin of that site to a fly fishing page and two to place holder webpages. There is no evidence that this owner has done any of what you claim. Additionally this website is based in Oregon, which is also the home of one vandal named Truth, and also your govener source. Me thinks that you and the owner of the ownit4less site are one in the same, or at least closely tied. In any case the person running that site, even if he did what you say he did, changed that nature of the business from a matrix to a non-matrix and serves no correlation to the primary discussion. Arzel

Fact of the matter is MW advocates frivolous claims, frivolous suits, and distorted truth and has no place in a point of reference. By your own admission you've spent all of 5 minutes going through "research", which hardly makes you an expert on a topic. The decidedly one-sided version you keep reverting to is hardly what I'd consider "neutral". Which is fine, it doesn't take but a second to revert it back to a version a number of people worked on to balance as much as possible.

Oh, might I suggest reading what "neutral point of view" entails. What you keep reverting to is far from "neutral".

You claim to be neutral but yet disregard anything against a matrix site to be biased, where is the neutrality in that? Arzel

Discussion of edits

If you won't discuss my edits, are you willing to discuss yours?

They are often rebuffed, however, by supporters pointing out additional revenue streams from advertising are used to keep the lists moving.

If a matrix site requires five new additions to the list to cycle one person off the top of the list, how does the injection of a few million dollars into the system keep the list moving?

Furthermore, the Oregon Attorney General, Hardy Myers, has examined the business model and deemed it to be legal.

Could you cite a source for this statement?

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.K. Trading Standards office have issued warnings to the public about the sites as some are scams, but have deemed them to be legal if run correctly.

Could you cite a source for this statement? In particular, what does "If run correctly" mean? What is the correct way of running a matrix scheme?

lawsuits from a certain group

What is this "certain group"? Vague rumors are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

the ultimately dismissed legal action taken against the grandfather of the matrix site, EZExpo.com

Source, please? Everything I've found on the lawsuit says that it was decided by default in favor of the plaintiffs.

The courts have ruled in favor of EZExpo on numerous occasions, though opponents to EZExpo have launched a number of appeals to these rulings.

Source, please? The rulings and appeals I've seen (other than the default judgement against the owners of EZExpo) have been in regards to the companies doing payment processing for EZExpo.

Why do you keep removing citations of sources used in the creation of the article?

Thanks, Carnildo 04:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Not my job to "convince" you of one view or another. Do your own research. Until such time as you do, you're propagating ignorance...that's a harsh fact. If you do a google for "EZExpo Oregon Attorney General" I'm sure something will come up. Furthermore, the defaults against EZ came about after the owners sold the site to someone else, who did not invest the legal fees to defending the suit, and allowed defaults. What MW fails to mention (and you have to go way waaaaay back in the archives to find this) is that Tim (the site's owner) lost Every. Single. Court date. right up until the new owners allowed a default.

Here's another harsh fact for you: "Vandalism" is obviously a point of view here. You claim vandalism when it doesn't jive with your views, but really...which version is closer to neutral? The one you keep putting up which spews rhetoric that is A) unfounded B) highly presumptuous and C) full of distortions, or the one I place up which, while slanted towards the other side (as my point of view leads), clearly and concisely states the facts both for and against without directly advocating nor warding away from the various sites? Of course, you'll undoubtedly state the wrong answer to this question, but I pose it nonetheless.

Request for comments

I suggest both sides do research to back up their respective positions. It shouldn't be too hard to find position statements from the bodies concerned nor legal rulings. Until this is done, a sterile "I'm right/you're wrong" doesn't get us anywhere. Dan100 10:30, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have. I've spent several hours searching the FTC website, matrixwatch.org, and a couple of matrix scheme websites. I haven't found anything on the FTC website that says that a matrix scheme is a type of pyramid scheme, but it's obvious that they consider the two to be similar, and illegal. MatrixWatch and the matrix sites agree on how matrix schemes operate, and I'd really rather not cite a website that will be shut down in the near future as a source, so I decided to cite MatrixWatch -- something that the anon apparently won't allow.
I've also tried to discuss the edits, as can be seen above. It hasn't worked -- the only response I've recieved is "You're wrong". --Carnildo 17:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Update: I've found something on a government site. It's a very nice page on the U.K. Office of Fair Trading entitled "Top ten scams to watch out for", and it lists matrix schemes right there at #7. [1] --Carnildo 18:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well that's put the ball in the anon's court. After reading Carnildo's references, there appears to be nothing factually incorrect in the article. If the anon wants to continue this further, I suggest he finds some good solid links. Dan100 08:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

comments

There is nothing really on the FTC website which specifically names Matrix sites (they are simply to new). However the following document http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/dvimf16.htm goes into some detail talking about Ponzi's and Pryamid. The term Matrix is actualy derived from the pryamid nature regarding the downline. A pryamid which required 5 people to sign up underneath you and could grow to 5 levels was called a 5X5 matrix going back to the mathmatical use of the word. The term matrix, which is now used, is called a straight line or forced straight line matrix. However there is a bit of confusion in the relationship between the matrix and a pryamid scheme, even though the term matrix is taken from the pryamid definition, the straight line matrix is actually more of a Ponzi, in that money from later investors is used to pay for the gifts of early investors. So you are not going to find much currently that specifically mentions matrix on the FTC website because it is really a modified Ponzi with a new name.

The primary arguement is whether a matrix is a Ponzi. One common arguement is that a matrix site is not an investment becuase you are recieving a gift and not actual money, however it is normal for most matrix site members to accept the cash value of the gift instead, and since many members would buy several positions within the matrix list it should be viewed as an investment. Another common arguement is that you are buying something and being placed on the list for free. Well that just doesn't hold water for a number of reasons which have been discussed.

From the legal point of view the EzExpo case focused on the illegal lottery aspect since it was an easier avenue to argue. Since you are required to purchase something to enter the matrix list, and their is no guarentee that you would recieve a free gift the element of chance results causing the matrix to be an illegal lottery. Arzel 3 Jun 2005

Well I spent the 2 seconds Cam apparently was not willing to take and googled "EZExpo Oregon Attorney General and a number of articles came up. Ironically, one of those is a quoted article in one of the external links under the article here itself. Very clearly states they aren't illegal--though the AG did state that in order to remain legal they have to walk a pretty tight line.

Did you even read that article, or just pull from it what you wanted. Here is the actual quote. "The ethical concerns came, Kurt said, because operating a matrix site is uncomfortably close to running a Ponzi scheme, a form of fraud in which early investors are paid off with money from later ones. And even though Kurt said he cleared his operation with the Oregon State Attorney General’s Office before he opened his doors, and concluded the operation wasn’t strictly illegal, he said the sites all have to walk a litigious “thin line.”" Additionally this person took down their matrix site after a week because of the ethical concerns regarding his site.
Additionally here is a statement from the FTC in the article. "Free gift a common tactic. But that’s a common tactic for con artists trying to circumvent the law, said James Kohm, assistant director of marketing practices for the Federal Trade Commission. “Simply calling it a gift doesn’t change the nature of what you’re doing,” Kohm said."
A Matrix site is only legal if you are not required to pay to join the list for the free item (see laws regarding sweepstakes) and the primary reason for joining the matrix is not for entry into the matrix. Arzel June 3, 2005

Furthermore, his argument that quoting a "site that will be shut down in the near future" holds zero water...that site has been up for years--shows no signs of shutting down whatsoever. There are many others like it. On the flip side, there are many that are fly by night operations that are rightly criticized. Point is irrelevant. This person also tends to gloss over the fact I brought up about the owner of MW losing all his suits against EZ up until the owners sold the site to someone else. The "illegal lottery" angle wasn't taken because it was the "easiest"...it was taken because it was the last avenue. He lost when he tried saying it was a Ponzi. He lost when he tried saying it was a pyramid. He would have lost the illegal lottery angle (the most far fetched of all of them) had the new owners not decided to just skip the hearings. Fact of the matter is with the exception of that one default judgment and an appellate ruling stating that pay processors can be included in lawsuits (not that pay processors are liable or there's any legality issues), they've lost every suit they've ever filed. That goes a long way in terms of determining the legality of a site.

THese are facts. This is the bottom line. There is no "unclear" legality. Warnings from the FTC? Justified since there are many that aren't run correctly. The FTC also issues warnings about credit counselling services, international trading, credit repair companies, multi-level marketing companies (Amway), and a million other things. None are illegal--they're just very easily manipulated industries.

As such, the links to MW are patently inappropriate, as they state as legal fact that matrix sites are illegal--when there is no such determination made by anyone other than them--and last I checked, they weren't governmental authorities. Their entire goal is to tie up money from these sites in litigation so as to harm the consumers that are currently members of the site. Sorry, but that just won't fly. They can be as self-serving as they like on their own site, but trying to promote themselves/pass themselves off as anything other than a small cultish subcommunity on the internet is ridiculous.

Links, please? I just Googled "EZExpo Oregon Attorney General", as requested, and got no hits. [2]. And could you please stop removing cited references from the article? It's considered vandalism. --Carnildo 00:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You want to try more than one search engine - try Yahoo as well. I found this. However it doesn't really help us much - EZExpo and the AG aren't mentioned together. And it's already in the External links. Dan100 08:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think the anon may be referring to the line
And even though Kurt said he cleared his operation with the Oregon State Attorney General’s Office before he opened his doors, and concluded the operation wasn’t strictly illegal, he said the sites all have to walk a litigious "thin line."
That does nothing to support the case that matrix schemes are legal -- every pyramid scheme letter I've seen has a similar line. --Carnildo 21:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Dan100 10:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

England Law, Lottery? Or simply more vandalism?

In the most recent vandalism (all references removed, links subtly changed, definition changed to be more favorable to scammers, etc) there was one bit of information added to the bottom the went like this:

UPDATED INFORMATION
On the 1st July 2005, the Office of Fair Trading in England declared that matrix sites operated as a form of lottery. As most sites do not acknowledge this, they operate illegally, and this is why matrix sites worldwide have been deemed to be illegal. However, if they follow the lottery laws of their country, they should be able to trade within the law. In England, a matrix site can operate within the law by simply stating that they are a private lottery. This simple act renders them as legal, and therefore able to trade.

Can anybody verify this? A reference would be good. Since it was included with a bunch of vandalism I suspect it's bunk, but on the off chance that it's real, this sort of thing should be included... Fieari July 3, 2005 00:47 (UTC)

Well, after google searches proved fruitless, I asked on the matrixwatch forums here: [3] and recieved a nice detailed quote as to what the UK defines a private lottery to be, and matrix sites can in no way be presented to even remotely fit that definition. So that "Updated Information" is in fact, complete bunk. Fieari July 4, 2005 16:20 (UTC) Cybertrax who says he has a neutral, informative view is the owner of two matrix sites. How can his views be neutral?

CYBERTRAX is the owner of two matrix sites and therefore cannot be relied upon to give a neutral view.

--- I propose to add the following paragraph to the legality section, to reference the "matrix sites are illegal lotteries" declaration of the OFT, and to inform site owners and potential customers alike that the claim that a matrix site can be legal by declaring itself a private lottery (which if it's being promoted on wikipedia, is likely going to be claimed on matrix sites themselves) is complete bunk. What say the rest of you? Here's the paragraph I suggest... comments please?

On July 1st, 2005, the Office of Fair Trading in England declared that matrix schemes are a form of illegal lottery. [4] While matrix sites may claim that they can declare themselves to be a private lottery, and thus operate legally, the very definition of a matrix scheme does not allow it to be defined as a legal private lottery. [5] A private lottery must sell tickets only to existing members of an already established club, society, workplace, or residence, and the club or society cannot have been formed for the purpose of having the lottery (which all matrix sites are). All the proceeds of the lottery must exclusively go to the prize or to benefit the society as a whole (no profits can go to the founder). Advertising the lottery outside the club, workplace, etc, is also illegal (all matrix sites require advertising of some sort to attract new members). And so on. Matrix sites claiming to be legal under England's private lottery laws are deluding themselves, and their customers.

Fieari July 5, 2005 03:06 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.　--Calton | Talk 5 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)


Apologies, please bear with me as I've only just discovered the talkpage!

As rightly stated, I own 2 matrix sites. However, that does not mean that everything I say is always going to be lies! Likewise, many people will try to write what they claim is a NEUATRAL point of view, but if they have anti-matrix feelings, their views will be distorted - its all a matter of opinion.

Regarding the English laws - I have spent hours of research on this, and I believe I was ALMOST correct in what I originally wrote. The Office of Fair Trading stated that matrix sites operate as illegal lotteries - they also quoted the law which stated that a lottery can be legal if it falls under one of four categories. A private lottery is option 3. In order to operate a private lottery there must be existing members of a club. In my case, the club would consist of members of a group who have bought a ringtone CD. These members would then be entered onto a list for electronic items - in the eyes of the law this would then be classed a form of lottery.

I point out that I have reworded this twice to try and make people happy, and have included the links to the official press release - this has been deleted. I ask, why has it been deleted? This is an official press release by part of the English Government, as such it is in the public domain, and is regarded as unrefutable evidence.

I would also like to point out that stating that people are 'deluding themselves' is not only NOT neutral, but could also be viewed as deflamation of character. I ask that this NOT be placed on the system, but instead another rewording take place that is agreeable to all.

By the by, I also used to be a member of Matrix Watch - I was banned because I proved in the forums that matrix sites were LEGAL in England!! I would also like to point out that as MatrixWatch.org is not a neutral site (anti-matrix), any of their members (such as Arzel) cannot be relied upon to provide reliable information.

Cybertrax (David)

You advertise your sites on google, therefore they cannot be classed as a private lottery. You are running them as part of a registered limited company which would suggest they are a for-profit enterprise and not a club or society, again against private lottery regulations. I have no problem with the OFT press release being included in the reference section. bazza_d

People who have bought a ringtone cannot qualify as members of an existing club for a number of reasons. First of all, the value of the ringtone is not worth the price of getting it. The fact that people are paying the price indicates that the ringtone is not what is actually being purchased in the mind of the consumer. See this thread on matrixwatch: [6] to see how little valued the "product" is, and this post in particular to illustrate my point: [7]
Furthermore, you CANNOT ADVERTISE THE LOTTERY OUTSIDE OF YOUR CLUB. So even if you claimed that people who bought this ringtone were members of an existing club, they can't be informed of the lottery until they buy it. How many people would buy a $50 ringtone if they didn't know it would give them a place on the "free gift" waiting list? I'd wager... none.
Additionally, I didn't mention it because I wasn't certain if it applied, but part of the private lottery law is that "tickets cannot be sent by post". Now, this doesn't seem to explicitly exclude e-mail, but I'm not sure how well that would hold up in court. The point of the law seems to suggest that the private lottery should be a face-to-face, in person thing, and I think the courts would uphold that.
By the very nature of how a matrix site works, ANY matrix site, by the definition of a matrix site, it cannot be qualified as a private lottery. Or rather, it IS a private lottery, but doesn't follow private lottery regulations and is thus an illegal private lottery, by definition. I'll grant that maybe, just maybe (and even this might be wrong) you go up, in person, face to face, to someone and sell them a $50 ringtone without telling them about the matrix, and they buy it, you might be able to get away with adding them to a list as such. But only if they were completely unaware of the matrix before buying the ringtone and being added to the list.
But fundamentally, the fact that you classify yourself as a "Matrix Site Owner" pretty much blows the "existing club that was not formed for the purpose of the lottery" proposition right out of the water. It's bleedin' obvious that the true and exclusive purpose of the site is not to be a club, but to be a matrix, or legally, a lottery... which is illegal. Fieari July 5, 2005 17:26 (UTC)


Bazza-D: You are incorrect in several parts of your comments above. Firstly, the site advertised with Google sells ringtone CD's. The lottery aspect starts operation AFTER the purchase of the ringtone CD. I believe that this means that I operate within the law, although as this is new legislation it has yet to be tested. Secondly, in order to keep various business interests separate, the matrix site business is NOT run within a limited company. I have 4 limited companies with a total of 6 business interests; the 2 matrix sites are run outside of that framework under the guise, Matrix Goodies.


Fieari: I must admit, I am rather unhappy at your attitude. You display a very negative opinion towards matrix sites in general - your neutrality doe not appear to exist. You state that the value of a ringtone is not worth the price paid - who said that? You may not think so, but others might. After all, the Crazy Frog ringtone is worth an estimated £10 million, and was downloaded at £4 per ringtone (around $7). A ringtone CD has over 10,000 ringtones on it - that would mean individually-costed the CD would be worth around £40,000!! As you can see, the ringtone CD is obviously worth the cost that I charge, and so customers are happy to pay the requested price. You state in your comments above you 'believe' this, and that. These are your OPINIONS, and are not factual. Therefore, this should not have any bearing on Wipdeia, as a neutral informative-based site. Furthermore, you base you reasoning mainly on threads on the MatrixWatch forum, which is well-known as biased against matrix sites. This means that they should not be relied upon for impartial information.

I am unhappy with the latest version, especially as it contains inaccuracies. However, I do not wish to be petty and so I will let it go. I would just ask everyone to remember to try and be NEUTRAL in your postings to Wikedia, and not let your personal opinions cloud your comments.


Cybertrax David, July 5

Fair enough. So do you operate your matrix sites on a non-profit basis to keep within the law? bazza_d

Furthermore, do you advertise the matrix anywhere, including your web page? I'll admit a bias against matrix sites, but then, everyone has personal opinions. As long as the article itself is restricted to facts, nothing wrong has happened... as far as I understand wiki policy. Well, that and refraining from personal attacks, but I don't believe I've made any of those either. I've attacked the scam, yes, but a scam is not a person. Fieari July 5, 2005 19:48 (UTC)

The fact that Cybertrax uses the first person and refers to "customers" (...the ringtone CD is obviously worth the cost that I charge, and so customers are happy...) pretty much puts upfront that he considers it a business he runs: not a non-profit, not a club or society. Nice try, but you contradict your own legalistic rationale. --Calton | Talk 5 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

By the way, what inaccuracies do you see? Even if you don't want to be petty, correcting them in the article, I would be interested in seeing them here, so that we can determine how to best fix the problems you see. Fieari July 5, 2005 21:21 (UTC)


I'll try to answer your questions/queries....please bear with me as I am trying my best here.

According to the Gaming Board of Great Britain http://www.gbgb.org.uk/lotlaw_main.html#PRIVATE_LOTTERIES (the official body responsible foe the gaming laws in England) they have stated that ,"There is no fixed percentage for the distribution of income, it can be used totally for prizes or divided between prizes and the club fund." Therefore, I take this to mean that any profits made can be placed into the club fund. In my particular case this would be in the website accounts. They also state, "There appears to be no requirement under Section 4 to have tickets at all. Such a lottery may be run in the manner of a sweepstake." This would mean that tickets are not sent through the postal service.

I advertise the matrix on the ringtone website. The website is the place where members join the group, and as such is the 'clubhouse'.

I guess I only had three problems with the article as it stood. Firstly, the mention that any matrix site owners are deluding themselves upset me, as this seems to me to be a personal attack on their mental state of mind. As a neutral site, I feel that this comment is out of place on Wikedia. Secondly, the general language of the article is slanted in the negative fashion. In my opinion this does not represent a truly neutral article. Thirdly, all the external links are to articles that 'knock' matrix sites - I have yet to see a positive article about matrix sites. I am afraid that if I myself placed such a link it would be classed as 'vandalism'.

Talking of which, I was also upset to see my edits referred to as vandalism. It is my understanding that vandalism on Wipedia is tightly defined, an example of which would be destroying whole texts and/or making slanderous comments on an article - I have done neither. All I have done is change an emphasis of an article from negative to positive. If this is wrong then I see that the people who originally made the emphasis negative are also guilty of earlier vandalism.

I would also like to point out that actual phrasing of the OFT press statement. If you study it closely they do not actually state that 'matrix sites' operate as illegal lotteries. If you take the whole paragraph into context, you will see that they are actually stating, after talking about two specific matrix sites, that "the matrix sites operated as illegal lotteries". I know that this is easy to misconstrue, but if you study the whole text, I believe that this is what they actually stated. Therefore, they have actually only stated that two specific matrix sites operated as illegal lotteries. Personally, I believe this is because of the way that these 2 sites traded.

Please also bear in mind that alot of what has been mentioned IS open to interpretation. This is new legislation that is being discussed, and there have been no test cases to prove/disprove what any of us have said. I could well be wrong, but I could also be right.


Regarding the term 'elevator ladder'. Personally, I have only ever heard of this term when used in a disparaging manner by opponents of the matrix system. I am unsure myself what the actual defination - what exactly it describes - so for now I'm not fussed with it's use.

Cybertrax David, July 5


First of all, the reason some of your edits were called vandalism is because you removed references, directly aplicable quotes, and that sort of thing... which is in fact generally considered vandalism. References are never to be removed unless the thing they are referencing is removed. On that note, I note that in one such edit, you removed the quote:
However, Steven A. Richards, a lawyer dealing with these issues, states that if the item in question isn't actually worth the amount of money tendered for it, and most people would not make the purchase if not for the bonus in question, it's probably illegal. 1
Which I think was innappropriate to remove. He did say this, it is relavant to the topic... if you have a quote from a legal expert, or even a matrix site that refutes this, I'd have no problem putting the refutation side by side... but I think this quote should stay. (I also think that there are no refutations from legal experts because he's right, but that's besides the point).
Onto your site in specific. A private lottery cannot advertise the lottery outside of the club in any way shape or form. If your clubhouse is the website, why is it open to anyone to look at, not just those already members? Furthermore, why do you refer to them as customers? Additionally, do your "members" advertise outside your "clubhouse"? Do you encourage them to do so?
It still seems like the sole purpose of your "club" is the lottery in question, which is once more, illegal.
As to the bias against matrix sites, well, everything points to the fact that matrix sites are an illegal scam, with very little to distinguish them from ponzi or pyramid schemes besides slight organizational issues (as someone said above, a matrix is a pyramid of one level). Compare with the article on [Ponzi Scheme|Ponzi Schemes]... NPOV doesn't mean that the all POVs are valid, but that the facts should be laid out. Wikipedia strives to be factual at every point. It is a fact that matrix sites are non-sustainable. It is a fact that they are illegal. It is also a fact that the people who run them try to say otherwise. None of this is POV, although, yes, it is negative.
For a pro-matrix link... what sort of link did you have in mind? You can't link to a matrix site directly, as that would be advertising, and wikipedia isn't here to advertise. Are there pro-matrix links that aren't matrix sites themselves? If so, I think that would be a perfectly valid link.
As for the deluding comment, that probably is going to far. I'll try to see if it can't be reworded if someone else doesn't fix it first. Fieari July 5, 2005 23:15 (UTC)


The article in question, taken from the press release, has MANY quotations. The one concerning the attorney was actually incomplete and taken out of context - hence the reason I removed it. The attorney actually stated that IF a matrix site didnt have a worthwhile product for sale THEN it probably ran afoul of the ponzi laws. As I have explained previously, my sites DO have a worthwhile product, and therefore the attorney actually backs up my own statement that if you do have a worthwhile product, your matrix site is not a ponzi. Also, the statement that the Oregan State Attorney Generals office actually gave matrix sites the green light was removed previously - this was also an act of vandalism.

Regarding laws - America is a funny place as there are both state and federal laws - with federal laws overiding state law. I am not very knowledgable with all state and federal law statutes - but I do study English law. I can only vouch personally for the legality of matrix sites in England.

Cybertrax.


So you know better than the OFT legal department. The gambling act is irrelevant as this is not being used by the OFT to close sites down. bazza_d

The Richard's quote was perfectly in context. If the product isn't worth the price paid, it's probably illegal. Okay, so you claim your product IS worth the price paid. Still doesn't invalidate the quote. I still doubt that anyone would purchase ringtones without the "bonus", but either way, the quote is still in context, and appropriate. This article isn't about YOUR matrix site in particular, but matrix sites in general. Fieari July 6, 2005 17:15 (UTC)


bazza_d: Very disappointed in what you said. The OFT declared that pulse and phones4everyone matrix sites operated as an illegal lottery. Lotteries, as we all know, are a form of gambling. Therefore, the gambling laws ARE relevant to matrix sites. I would ask that you stop trying to get personal, and instead concentrate on actually getting your arguements accurate.

Fieari: The lawyers quote was taken out of context simply because his emphasis on the statement was removed. His quote makes it appear as though a legal authority was condemning all matrix sites as illegal - this simply isnt true. I realise that there is no actual lie in the quoted statement, but it needs clarifying to the general public otherwise it is misconstrued and is therefore misleading to others.

On a more general note, I see that you have altered the description multiple times, to add a negative slant yet again on the description. This is wrong, as it no longer appears as a NEUTRAL article. Please change it back, as you know that this is not in the keeping of Wipedia.

As an additional point, I would like to point out that the references to court cases are incomplete. To the best of my knowledge, there have been NO criminal charges filed against matrix site owners, unless they have broken the law by failing to supply the electronics once someone has cycled - this would then be classed as fraud. The court cases that MatrixWatch proudly quotes have all been in the civil court - and as such no authority has actually decreed that matrix sites per se are illegal. I feel it is important to state this in the article otherwise the general public would bemisled into thinking the afore-mentioned courtcases were in the criminal court system.

Cybertrax July 8

"Elevator Scheme"

There was a recent removal of the term "elevator scheme" since the editor had never heard the term before. To be honest, neither had I, so I google'd "elevator scheme matrix" to see other places that both terms were used (searching elevator scheme alone hit many sites that were talking about actual elevators that take you from floor to floor). I got two hits, both from other reference sites: [8] [9] I'm not certain this is enough cause to use the term, but in the mean time, since I did find others using the phrase, I'm putting it back. Please argue here for reasons to remove it... I have no real attachment to the term, but I do think we should be complete. (I'm also adding "non-sustainable" to the introduction, which was in the defintion given in one of the two links above and I think fits rather well) Fieari July 5, 2005 21:33 (UTC)

For one thing, only one of those links is not self-referential: the second link is a Wikipedia mirror (This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community...). --Calton | Talk 5 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

An elevator keeps moving, a straight line matrix does not.bazza_d

Theoretically, a matrix would keep moving forever in ideal conditions, this can never happen in real life though. After all, all that is required to keep a matrix running, is more MONEY coming in not new PEOPLE, and time is money so, if only one new order a week (most individuals could afford $50 a week for there entire lives), it would still be moving, albeit slower, and slower, and slower. A matrix that takes a million years to cycle, technically, is still moving. In real life, legal costs, outdated items, inflation, and other issues would prevent this from even happening. Due to the fact that in theory a matrix could never collapse (only get longer then peoples lifetimes, and become pointless) I belive the 'elevator scheme' should stay, and non-sustainable buisness model should be changed to practically un-sustainable buisness model. If no one has objections to the proposed change I will be making it in a couple days.

I object. Your analysis reads like any number of economics papers: it fails to take into account how people really behave. --Carnildo 00:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I also object. You also fail to note that there are a finite number of people in the world, and a smaller subset of that finite number that have any interest in joining. The supply of "new blood" simply cannot continue. If every man, woman, and child in existence signed up for a matrix that cycles one person for every two more that sign up, then only one third of the population of the planet would cycle, two thirds would have given up money and gotten nothing. That's nonsustainability for you. And also practically the definition of a scam. Fieari 17:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
There are a finite number of people, yes, but MONEY is only limited by time. Thereby making it sustainable in a lab environment. User:24.80.61.180 23:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I took the liberty of signing your message for you. In the future, you can do this yourself by placing four tildas (~~~~) after your message.
In responce though, no, even with theoretically infinite money, only the minority of names on the list can cycle. Again, if only two are required for one to cycle, only 33% of names on the list CAN cycle. Assuming limited only by time, 66% of people on the list will still never cycle, because they'll die before their names come up. And by that time, no one will ever cycle, because each person cycling will have already died. Without recieving anything. And that's assuming that people keep being dumb enough to buy into it. Eventually, you run out of suckers as the people waiting realize that they're never going to get what they want out of a matrix. Fieari 02:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you about most of that, and thats why it only works in theory. However I suppose that the article is more clear this way... suggestion withdrawn 24.80.61.180 03:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Matrixwatch

I realize this issue has been resolved, but I would like to add another point to the discussion. I have over 3 years experience dealing with matrix sites on the internet, and one aspect of the matrix model is quite apparent. The model only remains viable so long as cycle times remain constant or reasonably constant. As the matrix grows, so must the rate of new purchases to create a constant cycle time. Depending on the length of the initial cycle and the size of the matrix you can easily calculate the matrix level, much like a pryamid scheme, and determine the saturation point and collapse (as we have done at matrixwatch many times). Once the saturation point is reached the matrix begins to collapse becuase of lack of new members, and although technically the matrix may still be operating, for all practical purposes (as Fieari and others have mentioned) the matrix is dead. If the UK wishes to learn more about the matrix model come visit us at Matrixwatch.org Arzel 04:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I consider it a bad thing to advertise the site matrixwatch.org here, its clearly POV, whether that POV is supported by the facts of correct doesn't matter, this would be the equiv. of someone linking to gotmatrix or something.

If Matrix Watch was a for-profit organization with some alterior motive then I would agree, but we are simply a volunteer organization which works to expose the matrix scam for what it is. Matrix Watch is about providing information, the matrix businesses would use Wiki to their own PERSONAL FINANCIAL gain. Arzel 00:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
That would make sense if it wasn't for several issues. First of all, we cannot verify that matrixwatch.org is a non-profit organizations, they have both banner ads and a donation button, we cannot verify, nor are we qualified to, where these funds are going. I am not accusing matrixwatch of anything, but the fact is it cannot be verified. Besides that, wikipedia policy does not have anything about showing one POV more then the other just because the people that believe that POV are trying to help you, while the converse POV is trying to turn a profit. In another situation, I would suggest putting both matrixwatch, and an opposing site, but opposing sites in this case are for-profit, so we cannot link to both. Meaning the only reasonable course of action is to remove the link to matrixwatch.org. This causes the problem of removing a reference, but again much of the for profit pro-matrix POV could be referenced from a pro-profit matrix site. So it must be both or none, or else it becomes POV. Imagine if the page on SCO Group included a link to groklaw and not the SCO web page. Groklaw provides information for free, while SCO is a for-profit company. A different situtation, but still the point is valid.
Wiki has a donation button, what is your point? Our books are open, you can view exactly what our opperating expenses are and how much money has been donated. You are really grasping at straws here. There is far to much outside evidence pointing to the Matrix scams as being illegal as to entertain that somehow matrixwatch is a POV reference only. Your accusations regarding Matrixwatch are baseless and selfserving. Your only purpose is to try and gain credibility for some matrix scam. Arzel 20:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Uh if you re-read what I said, you'll notice that I had a second, main point. As well as I said I'm not assusing matrixwatch of anything, but we are not QUAIFIED, to verify matrixwatches books. You want proof matrixwatch is POV, read your post, I made no accusations and you got incredibly defensive and even directed insults towards me. Not only that, but I agree with your POV entirely but I understand thats a POV, and wikipedia is NPOV.
Who is this "we" you are referring? Our operating costs are listed on our site, along with our donations collected. Also, please identify yourself if you wish to discuss further, or come to matrixwatch and discuss as to why matrixwatch should not be listed as a reference to the Matrix scam. Arzel 04:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"we" refers to the wikipedia community. Again I refer you to my main point in my first reply. Since you have refused to read it and or respond thus far I will paste it here. "Besides that, wikipedia policy does not have anything about showing one POV more then the other just because the people that believe that POV are trying to help you, while the converse POV is trying to turn a profit. In another situation, I would suggest putting both matrixwatch, and an opposing site, but opposing sites in this case are for-profit, so we cannot link to both. Meaning the only reasonable course of action is to remove the link to matrixwatch.org. This causes the problem of removing a reference, but again much of the for profit pro-matrix POV could be referenced from a pro-profit matrix site. So it must be both or none, or else it becomes POV. Imagine if the page on SCO Group included a link to groklaw and not the SCO web page. Groklaw provides information for free, while SCO is a for-profit company. A different situtation, but still the point is valid." I will not go to matrixwatch to discuss this, because this isn't a decision for matrixwatch to make, in any way. You need to accept that while matrixwatch may be 'good' and 'non-profit' and 'doing no evil', its purpose is not to tell people about matrix schemes, it is to stop matrix schemes. While this may be a very good thing that benefits everyone, there is a directly opposing POV held be a considerable amount of people. If you would perfer, we can simply add references to matrix sites, after all, the article would be improved by them. For example where it says 'many matrix sites claim to be legal' could be a link to the eqcircuit FAQ. Other similar things could be added. I think removing matrixwatch from external links, however not the references, and adding a matrix site reference for the 'owners claim sites to be legal' section would be best. (you might want to reread Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Flat_earth_problem).
"We"? You don't speak for me, and I'd wager that you don't speak for the majority of editors here. --Calton | Talk 06:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to speak for anyone else, I only used the word we to refer to the qualification of the wikipedia community as a whole to judge the validity of claims on another website. If you disagree with me on that point, thats fine, but it really has nothing to do with the current discussion. It was only a side point.
I did respond to your first point, and have stated reason why we at matrixwatch don't believe our position to be POV. If our position was OPINION then I would agree, but our position is based upon proven mathmatical and statistical fact, therefore is not POV but purely and extension of the facts provided by the wiki article. Why won't you reveal your identity? Arzel 14:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that POV enters the issue here. Wikipedia REGULARLY references POV sources, REGULARLY provides links to POV sites. As long as the article itself is NPOV, there is no difficulty in linking elsewhere, as long as it is directly relevant. Do you have POV issues with the article itself, as it currently stands? "Advertising" a site doesn't enter into the issue unless the site in question is for commercial purposes. A non-profit website, of whatever purpose, is not excluded from being a link. Abortion links to "National Right to Life" and "Prochoice.org" afterall. They organize their links by which they support, but I don't believe that's nessesary here, as I've never encountered a Pro-Matrix site that was not, in itself, a matrix site, which we ARE precluded from advertsing, since they are FOR PROFIT organizations. If you can find a non-matrix yet pro-matrix website or reference on the internet somewhere, I would have no objections to having it added to the links area.

Again, if you have an objection to this article, as it stands, please let us know and we can work towards consensus. But for links, wikipedia has related and relevant links for every good article it has. POV of said links is not considered when deciding when a link should or should not be considered for inclusion, ever. POV is considered when dealing with organizing links, but not when dealing with include/exclude. Only relevancy matters there. Fieari 19:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Alright I can accept that.


If it is agreeable to everyone, I can easily provide a link to a mini-site that is pro-matrix in their POV. As stated above, it seems to be the best option, as this means that the links on Wikipedia will provide both pro and anti Points Of View. Attempting to be neutral means that if anti POV links are provided (MatrixWatch.org) then pro POV should also be included - if available. I will create this mini-site on some of my server space, if everyone agrees. I can promise that this site will be separate from any other 'for-profit' site, and so should fit in with the requirements. Please let me know what you all think.

cybertrax.

Do it, as long as it isn't selling anything, we don't need to link to any quasi-legal for-profit site. For-profit sites are fine, and so are ones that are in legal question, but not both. SCVirus 08:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Having problems adding an additional reference site. I have tried several times, but this link has been removed on several occasions by both Calton and Carnildo - I view this as acts of vandalism, also abusive language is used in the re-edit.

Does anyone have a problem with an additional reference site being used?

--Cybertrax 20 November 2005 (UTC)


Your most recent attempt at a pro-matrix viewpoint is linked to your for profit business website.


The webPAGE that the link actually links is just that - ONE PAGE. There are no links to any other webpage or website, and as such cannot be classed as anything other than an informative webpage containing text of a pro-matrix content. This was in fact agreed upon by several members last year, that this would be acceptable. I guess that one of you has changed their mind - and 'forgot' to sign their name to identify themselves.

I would like to point out that as Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral base, when there is an anti-matrix viewpoint linked such as MatrixWatch.org, then there should also be a pro-matrix viewpoint to even things out. If you like, I can have this page transferred to a different domain of mine - I own 55 domains after all. Perhaps people would feel happier if it was based at MatrixWatch.NET ??!

As it stands, the recent changes to the external links section were not actually down to me. This is my first visit to the Wikipedia site for 3 months....there must be someone else who also feels as I do.


--Cybertrax 23 January 2006 (UTC)

However, you "Pro-Matrix" viewpoint has direct links to your for-profit websites. Where is your neutral point of view?


Apologies to Arzel and anyone else; when I wrote this page back in November I included links to matrix sites that had shut down and also ones that were still current - I had forgotten this when I made edits today. Have now removed all direct links to matrix sites from the pro-matrix web article.

I have also been viewing further information from the founder of Wikipedia on what constitutes a non-biased article - I would ask that everyone do the same and take note.

--Cybertrax 23 January 2006

Your definition of legality in your pro-matrix link is spurious at best. By definition you classify someone as a member of your club through purchase of an item, however this is a clear violation of the laws which state you cannot require purchase of the item in question to join the club. Thus you have a chicken and egg issue. It is legal if people join the club without purchase, yet the only reason to join the club is to purchase a "Ticket". Furthermore, such sales accross state lines (at least within the US) is not legal.

In any case I still do not see your point since your "Pro" view clearly states that under current classification no Matrix site will ever recieve a lottery licence. Your defense of Matrix sites identifying them as legal do nothing to improve your viewpoint.

As a side note I still do not agree with or the use of ebay in your defense. You are making an assumption that matrix advertisement within Australia on ebay is legal, however as Australia follows similar laws as both Britan and the US I find it incredulous to believe that they would be viewed as legal in Australia. Unless you can provide adequate reasoning for this inclusion I suggest it be removed.

Seriously though, why do you not find some other way to try and bilk people out of their money?

--Arzel 23 January 2006


Arzel, I shake my head at you! Although I have tremendous respect for your statistical analysis work, when it comes to matrix sites you wear blinkers.

Most websites contain a statement stating which countries laws are applicable to the customers/participants. This includes the big boys at Microsoft and Yahoo, as well as eBay and Paypal. This means that anybody viewing the site agrees that the law applicable to that website is that which has been stated. For example, if you goto the Paypal website www.paypal.co.uk you will see that the applicable law is under the English courts system. That means that Americans or any other nationalities visiting the site agree to adhere to the English courts of law. The same is applicable to matrix sites, therefore any customers to matrix sites based in England agree to abide by English law - no matter where they originate from.

As stated in the actual lottery arguement itself, a private lottery is exempt from needing a license, therefore does not need one. I agree totally that this theory has not been tested, and personally I hope that there is no need to have it tested, as this would mean that the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) believed that this arguement was invalid. If it is classified as a valid reasoned exemption, then no action will be taken. I have personally already notified the DTI of this reasoned exemption, and am waiting to see what action if any is taken.

I am not using eBay as an EXCUSE, more as a simple addon to the article. I state this conclusively as I myself have been selling on eBay Australia my matrix-style advertising for over 12 months, and have had many discussions with eBay Australia over this. As many people from MatrixWatch.org may recall, it was myself that caused eBay UK to change their user agreement regarding matrix-style advertising....they had no such policy in place until I pointed this out to them.

My reasoning is simple, based on the actual user agreements of each eBay site found below: eBay UK:- http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/listing-ov.html eBay USA:- http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/listing-ov.html eBay Australia:- http://pages.ebay.com.au/help/policies/listing-ov.html


As such I believe that my comments should stay - especially as I have already amended them to remove my assumptions! Wikipedia is aimed at being NON-point of view material...lets keep it like that please.

--Cybertrax 24 January 2006

I see nothing on the Australia link to validate your claim of legitimizing matrix sales. In addition the following link

eBay Australia:- http://pages.ebay.com.au/help/policies/listing-bonus-prize-giveaway-raffle.html

flies in the face of your private club lottery reasoning. Now, what do you classify a Matrix? I see no way around this issue, either a Matrix is an illegal ponzi setup or it is a lottery by which chance of winning is involved. Since there is no way for all to win a free gift (by definition the matrix model does not allow this) you cannot get around the aspect of chance. Using this logic, a matrix sale will fall into one of these two camps. Ponzi's are clearly illegal, so I don't think you will argue that point, but the lottery aspect clearly violates the Aussy eBay listing policies. Using this logic I see no other action but to remove that erronous piece of information from the definition.

In addition you POV has a banner link to you for-profit matrix site so I removed the link.

Finally, I am not arguing point of law with you, but from research with eBay matrix listings I know that the information you profess to list on your websites does not exist within the listing on eBay, for the express reason that if they did you would knowlingly violate their listing policies regarding lotteries and the like.

Arzel 17:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Just to state that, after recovering from a hard drive failure, I have altered the pro-matrix viewpoint external link in order to try and keep people happy. The link goes to matrixwatch.net (owned by myself), and as the domain consists simply of this one page and has NO links to anything apart from an email address, then it CANNOT be classed as against Wikipedia policy.

People may not agree with the content of this external link, but that is not the issue, as it is irrelevant. I ask that everybody consider what the Wikipedia site is about - what it stands for - and leave things alone.


Cybertrax 6th February 2006

Wikipedia is about truth, not bastardization for the sole express purpose of improving your own personal gain. I take issue with the name link as it leads to confusion regarding the site Matrix Watch. Additionally, some of the content in your POV is simply NOT TRUE. Thus I question it's validity on this website. You might do well to research or include in your link some relevant links to the appropriate legalize to back up your lottery arguement, as it stands I have been unable to find anything which states lotteries (the way you describe) as being legal.

Arzel 16:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Arzel, whilst I understand your grievances - being a member of Matrixwatch.org - I can assure you that I have already had discussions with John (Jokach, the chief Admin at matrixwatch.org) regarding the domain matrixwatch.net - owned by myself. You might take personal issue with the domain, but that is not the issue here. I previously had the external link hosted under a different domain at matrixgoodies.com but you removed it - over and over again. Therefore it was as a direct result of your own actions that caused the change in external link. Also, as neither domains are your own property, I suggest you refrain from 'taking issues'.

You suggest I do research - I have done. You might personally disagree what what is written within the external link, but that is simply your opinion, not fact. I have stated facts in the external link, and I am personally happy with what is said. Links to the UK Government and their statements on matrix sites have already been placed in the article, and as such I do not feel these should be duplicated.

The actual CONTENT of the external link should not be an issue here. The issue we have been debating was simply whether the POV page linked to a for-profit site - which has been dealt with. This means that it qualifies as a viable external link, as agreed months earlier by several key Wikipedia members. If anyone else disagrees I welcome your comments.

I would like to point out that I have actually retracted all links to matrix sites from this external link as requested - UNLIKE matrixwatch.org that has links to over 100 matrix sites! Does this mean that matrixwatch.org should be withdrawn as an external link?!!

Cybertrax 7th February 2006

Your research is shoddy, please show everyone, proof that the DTI have sent out warning letters. Matrixwatch does not promote matrix sites, you were clearly attempting to promote yours.


Hello Bazza D - it would be nice if you identified when you made a post, to help everyone understand who is saying what.

You claim that my research is shoddy, but you fail to back up this statement. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you have no factual basis for your statement then I will ignore it.

Regarding proving that the DTI sent out warning letters - its already linked in the main definition from the DTI themselves! If you do not believe me, check out www.matrixwatch.org as they also have many comments on the letters, along with the official press release stating what had happened - this was in July 2005.

Although MatrixWatch.org does not in itself try to promote matrix sites, they do this all the same. They have a Closed Site list, which has several hundred domains listed with their status alongside. These are direct links to hundreds of matrix sites, some of which are still operational. The domain that my external link was originally placed was called matrixgoodies.com. The external link itself led to the viewpoint page, which had only one link - to the main matrixgoodies.com index page. This page then had links to one matrix site. This shows that the external link did not DIRECTLY link to any for-profit site. Whilst I could have argued this point, I decided instead to move the POV external linked page to a different domain that had NO other links - www.matrixwatch.net.

This section of the discussion is getting quite long. I am fine with this, but wondered whether it might be an idea to create a separate section, entitled External Links ?! I am unsure of whether people agree with this, or indeed how you do this, so I shall let others act if they wish, to this effect.

Cybertrax 9th February 2006

I repeat, shoddy. According to the external links letters were sent out by the OFT (Office of Fair Trading). I cannot find anything, that suggests, they are the same UK government department.


People who live in England would probably be aware that the OFT is actually a division of the DTI - they are both working government organisations. OFT = Office of Fair Trading, DTI = Department of Trade and Industry. I may have the acronyms slightly wrong, but the gist of my text is correct. Perhaps "nit-picking" is not the best course of action to resolve any of our disagreements. Instead, please state what your actual problem is with my comments.

Cybertrax 13th February 2006

I'd just like to add that I support the pro-matrix website link existing, but utterly utterly reject all the statements made in it. Matrix sties are still illegal and immoral. Fieari 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Math

I've made this edit a couple times, and had it reverted. I'm just about positive I'm right though. First person needs 50 new signups, second person needs 50 + 49 (because he counts as one for the guy above him), third person needs 50 + 49 + 48, because the first guy has now had two signups, the second guy has one signup, and he has none so far. If you revert back again, please tell me where my math is wrong. Fieari 16:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Your math is wrong because the second guy has no signups. The second guy doesn't start getting signups until the first guy has been rotated out of the list. --Carnildo 06:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

To all parties;

I am the Mediator. Please post your side of the dispute on the case page at WP:TINC To Cybertrax; Who is reverting your edits? Please keep all discussion on the case page.Geo.{{greene}} 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC) The case page Geo. 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I see no place to discuss, where is the case page? Arzel 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed solution

In this medcab case, there is a proposed solution for the parties to review. Please do so.Geo. 22:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is fine with me, with the exception of Cybertrax. He has a vested interest in Matrix sites being deemed legal, and will do whatever he can to twist the arguement in such a manner.

I personally have no financial interest either way, and am not even sure why the article is under this attack.

The math speaks for itself. A matrix scheme will run out infinately, and regardless of what outside income is generated, it cannot solve a problem which is unbounded. Matrix scams have ripped off untold thousands of people over the past 4 years, and this can only result in a step back. Arzel 01:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Have entered into mediation on the correct mediation page.

Arzel, I am a member here whether you like it or not. This is not matrixwatch.org where you can ban people you dislike! I decided to ask for mediation as the way this article was being edited and re-edited meant that the original article had been twisted out of all recognition. I hope that by getting mediators involved we can stop the childish reverts and have a finished article that will NOT be changed constantly. Perhaps you would like to get some of the other matrixwatch.org members involved in this subject - it is after all the main reason the website was started.

I personally ask that anybody with an interest in this subject and article go to the mediation page listed above and help the whole Wikipedia community to develop an article that is acceptable to everyone.

Cybertrax 18:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/t/Talk%7EMatrix_scheme_Archive_1_ddce.html"