User talk:Igorberger/21-november-2007-01-january-2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion of Project Honeypot Spam Domains List Contested and Discussed

A tag has been placed on Project Honeypot Spam Domains List, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rocket000 (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The page as I viewed it was written in a way so as to promote the service which was the topic of the page. Nothing more, nothing less. On Wikipedia, spam is anything that promotes a product or service, regardless of whether it's commercial or non-profit. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you should delete the UnSpam Project Honney Pot Wikipedia article page also, because it is Spam advertising.

What makes their honeypot better than PHSDL - Project Honey Pot Spam Domains List? PHSDL

That that article actually provides sources in accordance to guidelines, and yours didn't? Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Secondly, stop creating Talk:Project Honeypot Spam Domains List over and over again. I can hear you loud and clear here. We don't keep talk pages if their articles get deleted. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sinebot, we need you!! Please remember to sign your posts. We are not judging the products here. Personally, I know nothing about either. I never heard of either so I can't even judge them, but that's not how we do things here. Please take a look at the guidelines I linked to in my message below. Thank you. Rocket000 (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not come here to Spam, so no reason to rewite the article. As you said you do not know what is the differnce between UnSpam and PHSDL. But you should refer to writen by Lance Spitzner he is the head of Honeypot.org

You should have aslo gave me time to explain myself as curtecy to a developer and a Wikipedia contributer before deleting the article. This is very desrispectable for an open wiki community. igorberger

Thank you for signing that. In the future, just click the "~~~~" link below the edit box or type it out. This adds the date too, which we like. Also, please only respond once (under the message your responding to). Don't worry, we'll see your reply; no need to repeat yourself.
You'll find we are a very neutral group here. It may sound mean, but in order to be a respected source of information, we have to place neutrality first. Even if that means hurting one's feelings. Before I nominated it for deletion, I read the whole article, followed the link, and read the talk page. So I did give the article time, but it was in violation of many guidelines we have.
A person's occupation does not factor in to how we treat people and especially how we treat the articles they write. So thank you for being a developer, but it's irrelevant in this case.
Just the fact you need to explain yourself, is enough to warrant concern. I don't mean to accuse you of anything, but it appears to me, based on your actions, you have a very strong interest in this topic and you seem intent on bringing it to others' attention. To me, these are common characteristics of people who spam. I know there's a lot of rules here, but you'll catch on :) Rocket000 (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First you tell me my article was deleted because I am a developer.

But Durova invited me on SeoMoz where I am a commentor Igor Berger at SeoMoz saying to all of us, "Wikipedians such as myself know you SEOs are out there. Just declare who you are and talk to us. We can be surprisingly cooperative. Provide encyclopedic content and you can get legit link love through line citations or CC-by-sa licensed images."

I did declare who I am, and I have refernces in my profile, but for the declaration my articale was deleted?

But Rocket000 who are you? You have no reference in your profile but you show that you know all the regulations of Wikipedia. are you an alies for UnSpam Project Honey Pot?

Did Durova come to SeoMoz to generate hype abput Wikipedia, because you guys losing attention, he is the administrator here!

Are you Durova, or some other senior editor ar administrator using me as Link bait to promote Wikipedia?

How can you make a judgement for deletion of an article and have it deleted right a way, before a rebutle can be done? Maybe Wikipedia needs to have a Sandbox for development beofre an article goes life, or if deleted should be placed in a Sandbox.

Maybe the reason not many people coming to submit new articles because they are afraid or have no confidence to do a public debate and discussion, like I am doing it right now!

Aslo to make a judgement of deletion by a new member like you, and have a senior editor like Jeffrey agree with your decession after 2 or 5 minutes, even that I put a hold for not to be deleted, is insult to any new editor! Why would anyone want to come to Wikipedia and submit a new article? Maybe you need to restric article submission to after how many edits.

Public bashing and humiliation of a product and a person is very bad image for Wikipedia!

So Rocket000, stop being anonynous and update your profile to be authoritative to some degree. I am not blaming you, I just do not know who you are and what are your motives for deletion.

Did you read those guidelines like I suggested? Those are my motives. Your article wasn't deleted because you're a developer, or even because of the conflict of interest. It was deleted because it was clearly promotional. As for using you as link bait for Wikipedia... that's just silly. You live in Asia, so I'm assuming you truly don't know how popular the English Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not selling anything, has no ads, and exists solely for us (including you). There was no bashing whatsoever of your product or yourself. The article was simply deleted. That can be taken as an insult; and for that I'm sorry, but as I said neutrality comes first.
"not many people coming to submit new articles" Take a look a all the new pages that get created every second. With 2,412,476 articles and counting, I don't think a lack of content is an issue.
As for me, it doesn't really matter who I am. This is Wikipedia, we don't care who you are in "real" life (unless it's relevant to the article). Online, my name is Rocket000. It always has been and it's what I use elsewhere. I have nothing to hide, I just prefer to keep my personal information at a minimum, simply because this is not a social network. If this was MySpace or something, things would be different. There's no need to tell about yourself. Likewise, too much personal information is looked down upon. That's not why we're here.
I'm not that new of an editor [1]. I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies, and that gives me the authority to request deletion. Actually anyone can, but if it's not in-line with our policies it won't be deleted. These "policies" I talk of weren't decided by any one person, they were created like everything else on here. They have consensus, meaning most people agree with them. I really recommend taking a look at some of those, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:COI (and possibly WP:N). If you are looking for a sandbox to try out things, all you got to do is make one, something like User:Igorberger/Sandbox. Rocket000 (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Durova should join this conversation as well because there are some important issues we discussin. And if he does not join, it just confirms my reasoning of Link Bait for Wikipedia

I hope I am wrong about this because!

Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay granted Devil Advicates, I will contact Lance Spitzner and ask him for his Authoritative opinion being that he is the heas os Honeypot.org Igor Berger (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a cop[y of the email to Lance Spitzner Igor Berger (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So by your definition you should delete UnSpam article as well Project Honey Pot is blatant Spam advertising on Wikipedia.

[edit] Re: Projest Honeypot Spam Domains List

Hi. I'm sorry the article got deleted, however, it seemed to me it was just advertising. It definitely wasn't annoying spam, but it was overtly promotional. It was not written with a neutral point of view and because of your involvement with the subject there's a conflict of interest, something we strongly discourage. Now, I didn't delete it myself, I just requested it. It appears someone else has agree with me. You may try rewriting the article, but this is NOT recommended because of the conflict of interest. Also, the subject may fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I wouldn't want you to waste your time if it's just going to get deleted again. Besides, if the subject is important enough someone will write a (hopefully unbiased) article about it in the future. Rocket000 (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not come here to Spam, so no reason to rewite the article. As you said you do not know what is the differnce between UnSpam and PHSDL. But you should refer to writen by Lance Spitzner he is the head ofHoneypot.org igorberger

For the purpose of evaluating notability, I only know the difference between an article with no sources and an article that has. If PHSDL is as notable as you say it is, I repeat: provide the sources to prove it. Or else your words ring hollow.
Incidentally, we discourage people from writing about businesses they manage, companies they work for, software they wrote, ... or websites they help to develop. As you have mentioned yourself to be the developer of this service please review our relevant guideline. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you need to refer to you Chief administrator word and policy. But Durova invited me on SeoMoz where I am a commentor Igor Berger at SeoMoz saying to all of us, "Wikipedians such as myself know you SEOs are out there. Just declare who you are and talk to us. We can be surprisingly cooperative. Provide encyclopedic content and you can get legit link love through line citations or CC-by-sa licensed images."

So even if I am Apache or Sourceforce dveloper you would still call me a Spammer?

I gave you sources but you did not bother to check them, but pulled the triger on a new user anonymous user recommendation!!!

Awyong you are shooting blancks here!

You and Durova need to coordinate what you want and do not want from Internet Developers Community. Cannot have your cake and eat it too. Wikipedia wants to be Authoritative but doe not not Authoritative users because of their affiliation.

Okay lets invite all grandmoms to talk about UNIX...maybe they will think it is a cat or Santa Claus..:) Igor Berger (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I emailed Lance Spitzner from Honeypot.org for his athoritative view on this issue. Igor Berger (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a cop[y of the email to Lance Spitzner Igor Berger (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking again on Honeypot (computing) I have noticed you added some honeypots, but refering to DMOZ these honeypots are not in the directory.

PHSDL is not in DMOZ directory but it is a honeypot. So why we cannot create a Wikipedia article for PHSDL but we can have an article for

Open relay honeypots which are Jackpot,[1] written in Java, smtpot.py,[2] written in Python, and spamhole (honeypot),[3] written in C. The Bubblegum Proxypot[4] is an open proxy honeypot (or proxypot).

What makes these honeypots authoritative? Igor Berger (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I also have an issue with you calling my Wikipedia article post as a blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something.

deleted "Project Honeypot Spam Domains List" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD G11), was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something.)

Awyong what makes the other honepot projects not advertisement and PHSDL advertisement?

What makes the other honeypots authoritative but PHSDL not? PHSDL has traped about 20,000 Spam domains over the past year, with many of them by Zlob who is the creater and prolifiater of Zlob trojan Spam Porn ActiveX Malware

PHSDL uses a unique Spam Filter technology to stop Spam Domains from being posted on Forums, Blogs, and Social Bookmarking sites. Igor Berger (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been asked to come here and comment. Small stuff first, I'm a she. There's a certain man in my life who thinks that distinction is kinda important. ;) Second, I suggest you follow the advice about becoming more familiar with the site guidelines, Igorberger. You might want to try the site's mentorship program, WP:ADOPT, to get matched with an experienced editor who can help steer you in the right direction. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 15:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Durava, thank you for your attention and I am sory I came out so strong. Must be the Russian in me. I will slow down and take baby steps first to get to know the Wikipedia community. Igor Berger (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case welcome aboard! Check out WP:WELCOME. It's a great place to start. It has tons of useful information. It has links to all our guidelines, tips on editing, and links to places where people will be more than happy to help. Lots of good stuff there. I also would recommend trying WP:ADOPT, as Durova suggested.
I hope we can put this behind us. It was nothing personal, I was just "doing my job". If you need anything, feel free to drop me a note. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Adam Lasnik

A tag has been placed on Adam Lasnik requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ariel♥Gold 13:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creating articles in subpages

Hi Igor, simply create a subpage, such as User:Igorberger/Project and create the article there. You can get others to give you input, and assistance, and when ready, can move it to article space. The article you created was one sentence, that didn't provide any content, or context, and didn't demonstrate notability to warrant an article, and that's why it was deleted. I'll leave a note below that I use to help newer editors understand how to create an article that won't be deleted, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Ariel♥Gold 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Igorberger, hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'd like to take this opportunity to provide information related to creating articles. First, make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please review the following relevant policies and guidelines. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so articles must not contain original research, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content, must be written from a neutral point of view, and can not contain unsourced, negative content about living people, and finally, must not be copied from any other source.

In addition, articles need to assert the notability of the subject. Please see our subject-specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content. Also be aware that if you are closely associated with the subject, (or are writing about yourself) the conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating or editing the article.

If you still think your article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. If you would prefer to get input prior to creating the article, to avoid the possibility that it may be deleted, feel free to post your suggestions at the articles for creation page. Sincerely, Ariel♥Gold 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ariel♥Gold thank you for your love towards Wikipedia, and will take your advise as a guide. Igor Berger (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Social Network edits

Igor, Got your note on my User discussion page, and I understand why you added the item you did. However, your reason that you observed this in one group comes from one observation. As such, it goes against a strong Wikipedia policy of No Original Research. FWIW, I have been studying social networks for 40 years and have edited a book on the subject (plus I have written 200 articles), so I think I have broader experience that the branding idea is only a minor offshot of the original social network concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellagio99 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for coming back to me, and I am not disagreeing with you. I also knew that I would be facing a Socialogist...so this will be a case study in the works. My experince is not just with one group but with a few groups. One is SEO, two MySpace Social network, three LonelyPlent travel network, four Yahoo Finace Chat Group and a few usernet groups.

I have been involved in these groups since 2,000 and always coming back with the same conclussion that someone is trying to sell something to a community. If we can juxtapose hunter-gatherer to virtual-reality or maybe better called virtual-society we will be in agreement that Social networking constitutes a Social Network. We might be early to write a conclusive Dissertation on this but this is where the society is going. Igor Berger (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at a new article I am working on User:Igorberger/virtual-reality-society Igor Berger (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I have made no claims against you false or otherwise. Going forward, please investigate changes before accusing people. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 21:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My apology to you Sir. I made a stupid mistake not understanding the syntax...please, please foregive me...now I realized you were helping me an WikiPedia... Igor Berger (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SEJ Comment Spam

Hi Igor, thanks for your message on my user talk page. See me detailed response. It includes a suggestion to troubleshoot the issue and more. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I conducted a test on Searchenginejournal.com Spam Filter

This is the original thread that indicated to me that there is a problem with SEJ Spam Filter Porn Spam in Google’s Froogle

Please make your comments relevent to Spam filter and forum and blog Comment Policy Igor Berger (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiPedia Spam filter article section needs some work to include forum, blog, Social bookmarking Spam under a Social networking subsection to reflect the changes to the Social media as applied to a Social network. Igor Berger (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Igor, Loren sent me an email response too. He uses Spam Karma 2 actually and not Akismet. Spam Karma 2 migth be good, but it also has a lot of flaws. I recall an incident at another blog from August where all comments disappeared that were made by one participant in the discussion because his IP was black listed by SK2. It had to do with the post frequency, which was set by default to something like 3 or 4 comments over a 5 day period. I also suggested to Loren to check out Andy Beards post about SK2 at his blog [2]. Loren is thinking about requireing an account for comments. That is a tricky question, but I gave him some ideas to think about and to consider. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
p.s. the content related to internet marketing in Wikipedia is not very comprehensive, to say it nicely. If you look at my personal to-do list on my user page (which is not complete by all means) you will notice that it is not that short. I did a rant in May at ReveNews.com about the unwillingness of most (affiliate) marketers to contribute to Wikipedia. It also explains my rationale why I think they should and that it is a win-win situation for everybody. [3] --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SEO Consultants

With the guidance of Jehochman Talk I am building new SEO Consultants pages for Search_engine_optimization article, sub section Notable SEOs, Category:Search engine optimization consultants

Help Needed

If you know something about the industry and would like to help me with this task, you will be more than welcomed to give me a hand. Igor Berger (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also examining a New Breed of SEOs Igor Berger (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also interested in creating a page for social media consultants These are very clever people in the SEO market but you cannot really call them SEOs. Here are a few examples of them. Dan Zarella urban legend postand Maki from DoshDosh is Maki an Anime or a person? The lines on these Social networks become so blured that a protagonist is no longer human but virtual In some people eyes even a demo god Igor Berger (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Study of Social netwroks methods Igor Berger (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Reality Society

YouTube Mokurentate virtual world meets the real person

I want to do more examination how virtual reality plays a part of social fiber of social network Igor Berger (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am creating a sandbox, to examine the interwoven fibers of Virtual Reality Society Igor Berger (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Network Society

virtual network society Igor Berger (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to Society#Social_networks

  • Hunter-gatherer bands, which are generally egalitarian.
  • Tribal societies in which there are some limited instances of social rank and prestige.
  • virtual-society is a society based on online identy.
  • Stratified structures led by chieftains.
  • Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments.
  • Humanity, mankind, that upon which rest all the elements of society, including society's beliefs.

Is virtual-society a society or not? If it is a society, is it not a Social network. Igor Berger (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nofollow comments at my talk page

Hi Ignor, see my comments to NOFOLLOW at my talk page. I hope they make sense. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Society / Virtual Community

Igor, for your info in thinking about a virtual society article, there already is an article about virtual community in Wikipedia. It has some problems, but is pretty good. Regards, Bellagio99 (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiResources

Hi Igor, I reverted your edit of my WikiResources page (diff) and I did not get the joke, could you elaborate that one please? Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not a joke...please investigate. Igor Berger 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

see my comment. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asianwikitravel

Hi,

I'm curious about the revert, the list is composed of blue-linked entries, those that are notable. Were you going to create this article in the near future? WLU (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a new WikiMedia project. I put some talk on e the article where you removed the link. If you can help getting the new article started woud be great. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If you like to talk about the project let's do it here Talk:List_of_wikis#WikiAsianTravel Igor Berger (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have replied on that page. I am not interested in starting that particular article. It is your talk page and you have considerable leeway here, but please consider formatting comments per WP:TALK as it makes it easier to read. WLU (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You run a travel agency in Thailand, and you want to add a wiki based on asian travel to a list of wikis... this suggests a minor conflict of interest to me. Not enough for anything official, but you may want to reconsider your promotion of a webpage directly aimed at your target market. WLU (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am a prt owner, Webmaster, and a consultant to a Thai Travel Agency, I have disclosed that on my page! Recoomending a WkiMedia Travel Project to WikiPedia as an article is COI? I also administor PHSDL anti Spam project...and I am a Spam Avengelist, is that COI??? Comeone you better stop before you ahead. I said no problem, nut you want to keep going! Finished conversation, go see administrator if you have a problem with me..Igor Berger (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
If you are going create the page, be sure it passes WP:N and WP:WEB, otherwise it may be deleted very soon after creation. Pages on wikipedia are required to be notable, and this one does not appear to be yet given it's extremely small number of google hits ~260. Low google hits does not mean it automatically fails, but it generally indicates it hasn't had coverage by independent media. I also think that if you talked to an admin, they'd probably be on my side. Final point - if you're interested in adoption, try going here and contacting one of the adopters directly, it's probably quicker and most would be very pleased to have a new adoptee (that's why they're part of adopt-a-user). WLU (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay thank you for the heads up and an explentation. At least I got some input on the project and will se how I can help it reach notability. Like I said, my ability of creating an article from scratch to end is not that good, and I feel my time can be better opimized working on anti Spam project that will benifit the whole Global Internet Village. We all are working with limited resources, mine is a henderence to make a long relative article, but I am good at finding new trends and forcesting a trend. So by putting this project out to the community I got some input on the system and will work with that. Thank you for your help, and sorry for coming out beligerently, but was thinking of the good of the core, not myself. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure. However, if you create the page in a way that it passes the notability guidelines, feel free to drop me a line. You do make a considerable number of spelling and grammar errors (speaking 7 languages, I'm not surprised :) but I'd be willing to proofread the page and correct what I can. Another option is to compose it on a sub-page before asking for comment or moving it to mainspace. WLU (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Great, thank you very much for the offer to help. I am doing a thousand things at the same time..:) And make spelling and grammer mistakes when typing fast, but if I take my time and proof read, I get much better. I got an A in my university compesition class...Okay I will see when I can alocate time for this article and wil kep base with you as to what and how I will go about it, so you can give me some input so no time is wasted. Thank you for your guideness, Igor Berger (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 88.232.163.140

Hi, Igor. I saw the request in your edit summary that someone block this IP for spamming. As much as some of us might want to, typically we don't block spammers until they've received multiple warnings on their talk page. See the Blocking policy. So if you see someone spamming or vandalising, please warn them using one of the warnings from this grid: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Multi-level templates. That lets the user know their actions are inappropriate ... and makes it easier for an admin to justify a block if the behaviour continues.

Also, with spam, it helps to leave what someone call a "cookie crumb" (no relation to web cookies) -- a link to the domain that was spammed. Because we use "nofollow", they get no "link love" and leaving such as link makes it easier for someone to see what accounts have spammed this domain by using the Special:Linksearch page. Since spammers frequently change usernames and IPs, cookie crumbing helps us see if they've been warned already.

If you have time, it also helps to report the spammer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎ -- that automatically puts them on a list of domains monitored by a software bot as well as alerting anti-spam volunteers to watch for the domain.

Another editor has warned this anonymous editor and I cookie crumbed the page: User talk:88.232.163.140.

I very much appreciate your flagging this editor. I notice you're involved with SEO topics; we especially like to have white hat SEOs helping us at WikiProject Spam, so if you're interested and have time, please check us out and pitch in.
--A. B. (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. The guy did a vandalizim twice few minutes apart. I am currently working with SpamAssassin on a sub project BlogSpamAssassin with my contribution of PHSDL methodology. Have a loom at this also BlogSpamAssassin. When I get a chance, I will come and check out Wiki Project Spam and see what we can learn from each other. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


PS, I saw the exchange above about Project Honeypot. Ironically, someone associated with that organisation actually spammed a bunch of links to them a few months ago, so some people were wary for a while of articles about the organisation as well as any links to it. I think it may be time to revisit the question. --A. B. (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A.B. I have no problem with PHSDL, actually I prefer somone else doing he article. I am more consern that WikiPedia is on UnSpam Spam list...

Please check this [4] about Unspam project honeypot and this about Akismet [5]

I do not have a problem with every anti Spam project having SBL but we need to coordianate the Spam Filters to avoid false positives. Igor Berger (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet War

I am starting an article to documet the Internet War which is being fought right now that is about controling information and social engineering by powerful entities that are disruptive to society as a whole. User:Igorberger/Internet War Igor Berger (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

war is lost Igor Berger (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 71.226.158.141

We do not destroy and stap our opinions on overs, be build by consensus. If you cannot participate creatively in the discussion of Talk:Knol then your IP address will be banned again and again! And you will create a black history for yourself. I would advise you to think about before acting as a vandal to the WikiPedia project. Regards, Igor Berger

First, in response to your comment on my talk page, I have not destroyed or stamped my opinion on others (I believe this is what you were trying to write), and yes, Wikipedia builds by consensus, within the framework of the rules and guidelines.

Located atop the Talk:Knol page:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Knol article.

"How to use article talk pages

Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you, and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Giving an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus.

Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but aren't sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal).

Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.

Share material: The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article.

Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.

Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article."


This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

"Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board."


Now, with that posted, participation toward Wikipedia is not based on creativity, it's based on facts and the pursuit of facts. If you wish to create for your own satisfaction then go elsewhere.

As far as the threats of banning me, over and over again. You even state,

Although there is no direct physical evidence to my statement, there is circumctential evedince which is guilt by association, based on rampant vandalism to delete this section of Talk:Knol, which I have started to catalog at WikiProject Spam Vandalism and social engineering of Wikipedia Knol article. Any further attempts to deolete this section will be seen as additional proof of an attempt of social engineering of WikiPedia percation of Knol. WikiPedia is built by consensus not by destruction. Anyone is welcome to join the discussion on this article in a creative contributing matter.

And yet, with no direct physical evidence, you pursue punishment and use negative language at the cost of my wiki experience. I clearly stated on all my edits that the material deleted was violating the rules & guidelines for this discussion. And you declare vandalism.

If you would only follow the rules & guidelines and stop taking it personally, as your Talk History suggest, then you would not only stop your jump to rash and unjust decisions, you would also gain support for your endeavors. Your threats and actions are a perfect example of why this Wikipedia Project is on a slippery slope. Wikipedia has become a home to the lost and rejected who seek identity and power, which turns off vast number of editors and future editors because of the experience that awaits them, thus providing an open market for Knol to become the primary source of factual knowledge.

Ones fears and anger will become their reality if they precede to harbor them. You accuse me of being a vandal, yet I'm the one following the rules. Who's the real vandal here? Good Luck Igor.71.226.158.141 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)T.L. Sawyer

Thank you for your input, your opinion counts like everyone`s else. Please continue to contribute to WikiPedia in a productive community based matter. Igor Berger (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
In addition, respectfully, do not Spam WikiPedia with duplicate content of WikiPedia, a link to the athoritative article will be sufficient. Igor Berger (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Your actions are being tracked Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Vandalism_and_social_engineering_of_Wikipedia_Knol_article Igor Berger (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the statements here made by the anon user 71.226.158.141. Igor, please, before labeling edits as social engineering, Google Conspiracy, spam and so forth, please read the justifications to their actions. Here they were very much justified. DuckeJ (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
DuckeJ what is your Authority to tell me a WikiPedia Spam patrolman that it is not social engineering? Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#How_to_identify_spam_and_spammers for being able to identify a Spammer! Spammers Spam in a variety of ways, one of them is Social_engineering_(political_science). Igor Berger (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll tell you. I'm working on an article. I see one editor making legitimate edits, that he documents and explains why he is making them. I see another editor disagree with him. He does not respond to the legitimate explanations of the first editor, does not try to convince him in his mistakes or make any calm claim. All he does is escalate matters, only makes personal attacks at the other editor and blames him as trying to create social engineering, blame him as a spammer and even go as so far as to try to have the other editor black listed as a spammer! The angry editor does not try to explain his over-reaction, he only refers people to various general articles such as WikiProject_Spam#Vandalism_and_social_engineering_of_Wikipedia_Knol_article. When the first editor gives a lengthy, calm, well explained statement in the angry editor talk page, the angry editor again does not respond, does not explain his position and does not seem to feel he needs to justify his prosecution of the first editor. He only says "Thank you for your input, your opinion counts like everyone’s else". I do not find this complete dismissal of your fellow editors appropriate, polite or civil. I think it's rude. I think you owe him an explanation and an apology. Look at how muc time he devoted here above to explain his actions. Did you even read what he wrote? Look at the answer you gave. I saw his edits and I read his explanations of them. He is perfectly justified in making them. So Igor, please, calm down and treat your fellow wikipedians with the same respect you wish to be treated yourself. DuckeJ (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Duke please tell me what editor you refering to. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
71.226.158.141 is the first, Igorberger is the second. I thought this was clear. My apologies. On a different note, I am disengaging myself from this discussion. There are only so many times I can say the same thing. I think anyone who reads this discussion will have a clear view of what is going on here, and as for user igorberger, it is clear to me that my words are falling on deaf ears. DuckeJ (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Duke you are free to follow your believes and I am free to follow mine, this is what humanity is about! No one is 100 % right and no one is 100 % wrong. You have to take everyting you see with a grain of salt. If your objective is to prove me wrong, you are wasting your time and the time of WikiPedia community. Please continue editing what ever article you feel like doing work on. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)