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)[reply]
{{hangon}}
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here is a cop[y of the email to Lance Spitzner Igor Berger (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
So by your definition you should delete UnSpam article as well Project Honey Pot is blatant Spam advertising on Wikipedia.
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
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
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!!!
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)[reply]
Okay, I emailed Lance Spitzner from Honeypot.org for his athoritative view on this issue. Igor Berger (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a cop[y of the email to Lance Spitzner Igor Berger (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.)
What makes the other honeypots authoritative but PHSDL not?
PHSDL uses a unique
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi Igor, simply create a subpage, such as
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
WikiPedia
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)[reply]
I am also examining a New Breed of SEOs Igor Berger (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am creating a sandbox, to examine the interwoven fibers of Virtual Reality Society Igor Berger (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
virtual network society Igor Berger (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to Society#Social_networks
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It was not a joke...please investigate. Igor Berger 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
Thank you for the input. The guy did a vandalizim twice few minutes apart. I am currently working with
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]