Luitgard

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let's keep the Greg Tseng article neutral POV (not positive or negative) so it doesn't get deleted! Nice working with you :) Cheers, Biographylover (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Biographylover, I'm glad you're so concerned about the Greg Tseng article. :) Luitgard (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please don't do that. It's confusing. Comment at the end of someone else's commment, rather than after each paragraph. Thanks, ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the confusion, I hope that indentation would make the structure clear. More importantly, thank you for your input. The addition about Lewis's orientation was a quick attempt at trying to balance his very negative quote, but you've helped me see that this addition was doing more harm than good. Luitgard (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Luitgard. Someone brought your sandbox article with respect to Carrie Prejean to my attention, and I just wanted to mention that you may want to read through WP:BLP before trying to make that a viable article. I only say this to save you the efforts of building such an article - only to see it end up at AfD. There are several policies and guidelines which may make creating an article like that quite a chore, so I just thought I'd mention it ahead of time. If after reading through the BLP policy you decide you want the page deleted, just drop me a note. Cheers and best — Ched :  ?  17:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just to note I have deleted and suppressed the page, as the title itself is unsourced and is a serious violation of WP:BLP. Risker (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

As related on the discussion page, the effort to create the article was abandoned some time back when the impression was formed that Prejean was not being honest about the time the videos were made. As for the material being unsourced, the references (http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2009/11/is-carrie-prejean-technically-subject-to-5year-mandatory-minimum-federal-sentence-for-distributing-c.html and http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33823079/ns/today-today_people) in the main article on the topic are credible and it seems extreme to delete it and suppress it before consensus was found. The purpose of such page is too develop an article before publishing it. It was never claimed to be a finished product compliant with all requirements and it was obscure in the extreme. I'm surprised that anyone thought it worthy of notice and I can't help but wonder if this isn't more partisan activity. So many of the editors of the Wikipedia are partisan rather than NPOV. As for the sand box article, not that I'll miss it too much, as it was an abandoned effort, but I will look into the matter of how this was handled, as it makes a very bad impression. Luitgard (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Deepest thanks for your kind words. I've learned that Wikipedia is about the truth and facts, and not personal disputes or ad hominem digressions that attempt to hide the real issues. Still, it is important to consider other people's feeling and if the concerned individual wants to discuss the matter on her or his personal page, I'll try to find time to do so. Thanks again! :) Luitgard (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The irony here is so thick it's suffocating me. Luitgard has dedicated 90% of the activity in his account to making person attacks against ACTUAL LIVING PEOPLE and boosting the visibility of said attacks as high as he can on various search engines, and we're worried about whether or not someone is attacking the abstraction that is his wikipedia account. Adrian, do you understand the difference between a wikipedia account and a person? I mean in your case you actually used your full name, so you might not, but the fact that he can say whatever he wants and hide behind the name Luitgard and that you would actually defend that is appalling. Between calling another wikipedian his nemesis, calling a person a spammer and fraud by their real name, saying "no one wants to claim the guy", and fighting tooth and nail to save an orphaned article from the orphan designation by adding that article to a bunch of obscure lists ("list of spammers", "list of entrepreneurs", "famous alumni from Thomas Jefferson High School", who knows if he's added anything since...) purely for the sake of keeping his smear attacks at the top of the Google listings, it has been made clear that he is anything but civil! These actions, and any defense thereof, are truly disgraceful. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear madame or sir, Luitgard is a woman's name. And Bernard Madoff is an "ACTUAL LIVING" person. The top hit for him is the Wikipedia article and it has some very unflattering info in it, just like the one on Greg Tseng. That is because both of them have been adjudged, not by me, but in courts of law and authoritative governmental proceedings to have harmed others in specific, and the public interest in general. If people don't want top ranked Wikipedia articles that are critical of them, they should not deceive and spam millions of people over the course of 8 years, generate multiple successful legal actions against themselves and provoke major media outlets to condemn them. How are you missing this? As for Prejean, the worst heat I took in editing that article was from her detractors for trying to provide possible context for a statement very critical of her by the gay former pageant director. I got slammed by her critics and relented because they had a point. They've suffered so much from discrimination that they're very sensitive to any possible sexism. (&BTW, don't call me "he" or "him"! :) The funny thing is that her supporters prevailed in the end by sheer persistence after her critics had left. As you might have noticed, I'm not leaving as long as anyone is editing the Tseng article. It was your edit of the intro that brought me back, and as long as I was here, I updated the article. That raised the search engine rankings and our reverting each other has done the same thing, so congratulations for having help to create what seems to upset you. If you have a quarrel with Wikipedia's policy of allowing anonymous editors, take it up with them. I will say that if I did go public on this, I would really come out swigging in a high profile way, a la Erin Brockovich. More likely, I'd try to get someone else to write a story on Tseng. The fact that he went below the radar and got away with so much for so long is fascinating. It's a great story and would likely sell. Also, more attorney generals from other jurisdiction could likely be persuaded to sue tagged.com, as he's lost or settled by paying substantial sums all the cases I've referenced. But if people like you would just calm down and let the truth about Greg be known, I'd probably give it a rest and work elsewhere. You can keep claiming it wasn't Tseng who did the bad things, but his two companies, Jumpstart and tagged.com, but no one is likely to take you seriously. Meanwhile, I suspect you're coming to the attention of some of the more senior Wikipedia editors for your hardheadedness. I also left you comments in the Greg Tseng article's discussion section. Peace be with you, Luitgard (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't care what anyone writes about him in the press, and I doubt that you do either because you know that the wikipedia edits are more damaging and require a miniscule fraction of the work, credibility, or accountability. Bernie Madoff is a convicted felon. I can't find anything that even suggests Greg Tseng has ever been named a defendant in anything -- granted I haven't looked but I'm sure that if it existed you already would have brought it to light. Bernie Madoff also appears on the front page of mainstream press, securing his noteworthiness whereas articles about Tagged (not Greg Tseng, TAGGED) show up once every blue moon in whimsical Time pieces about something that is "annoying". Andrew Cuomo, following in the footsteps of Giuliani and Spitzer, went after an easy payday in Tagged knowing that it would be more costly for them to fight him than to just pay a fine with no admission of guilt. How many resources have you ever allocated to fighting a speeding ticket? What if you knew the ticket was being issued by future presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani? That's what I thought. All right, I'm done, this is actually kindof boring me. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2010

(UTC)

No, what is written in the press is important as it forms the foundation of a valid Wikipedia article. Life is imperfect, and Wikipedia is no exception, but we can try our best and I have as time allows. I will admit that I'm intrigued by your belief that the San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Federal Trade Commission and the California civil courts all decided to go after Tseng's companies for no real reason. And Time magazine and 20 other publications decided to pile on? Could it be a conspiracy? If so, maybe you should raise an alarm that so much persecution has fallen on an innocent man. Or do you think Tseng had done something to deserve it? Regards, Luitgard (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Please see the article on Bernard Madoff and notice that his Ponzi scheme is mentioned in the 1st sentence along with his other salient characteristics. Greg Tseng's spamming is mentioned in the 1st sentence of his article along with his work as an Internet entrepreneur. Perhaps we should add scientist to the 1st sentence as well?Luitgard (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did I say they went for no real reason? I thought I said they went for an easy payday, and they got it. Can you find an article that says there was a conviction or even an admission of guilt? Can you find an article that says Tseng, and not his company, was the target of anything other than a phone call? Is there a distinction between convicted felon and what I just said? To my knowledge the man has not been persecuted by anyone except yourself, although the company is obviously a different story. Maybe that content should go in the article for Tagged? UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello UWF, if I may call you that. When you say "his company", did you mean to say companies plural? Weren't two companies that Tseng was CEO of fined for actions that would fit most definitions of spamming? And what is it that makes Tseng's companies such inviting targets for these public officials and entities that are seeking an "easy payday"? Greg Abbott and the Federal Trade Commission both actually made rather compelling cases against both Jumpstart and tagged.com. What did those two companies have in common besides spamming? They had Tseng as their CEO. They've both been written up in the press for those practices and Tseng was mentioned as the CEO in many of those articles. As I've said before, you can keep writing that it wasn't Tseng, it was his companies that spammed, but I don't think you'll convince many people with that approach. It's like someone saying of a puppeteer, "He didn't do that, his puppet did!" I guess that's the only approach left to you in an effort to keep Tseng from being held responsible for his companies' actions. Tseng is at least as well know for his companies' spamming as he is for being an Internet entrepreneur. I never would have heard of him if not for the spamming, that's for sure. I feel that if one belongs in the summary, the other does. You disagree and it looks like we're headed to dispute resolution. That's probably a good thing. Best regards, Luitgard (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a safe assumption that Jumpstart and Tagged are for all intents and purposes the same company that probably had the same staff, although you are free to disagree. I have no idea what the truth of the matter is, and I doubt that you do either, but for all either one of us knows they could have a rogue employee or subcontractor who has cost them over a million dollars now in court settlements cleaning up after his mess. Is this idle speculation? Absolutely. Could it be Tseng that directly ran all these campaigns? Possibly. Could it be someone else? I don't see why not. Would it be irresponsible or unethical for him to keep someone on board if they were causing all this trouble for him? Maybe, maybe not. Bear in mind that by your own admission this is a complex and talented individual, and he's been at work on this company (sorry, these companies) for 8 to 10 years at least, so presumably he's been at work on a LOT of things in that time. It's hard for me to imagine that he's spent more than 1% of his time (assuming he is directly the culprit, which I think is a questionable assumption), and perhaps not even 0.1% of his time, creating features that generate annoying emails. So I don't know -- if it was somebody else responsible should he fire them and is he lax in not doing so? Again, it probably depends on who they are and what they do. And if he is directly responsible should he modify his actions to become a better person? Again, I would estimate that, even in the worst case (i.e. him acting alone), 99-99.9% of the time whatever he's doing is completely unrelated to the activities that upset you so. Given that, even after paying out these settlements, he's probably still netted a profit from the activities in question, I can see why you find it so objectionable and you want to raise his public profile so that you can tar and feather him. Still, it just doesn't feel right and I'm 99.999999% convinced that that is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia (although it is unquestionably an effective one). UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Amazing... UWF, I don't understand why you are doing this if you are really sympathetic to Tseng and feel that I am hostile to him. Do you realize that if I did wish to pursue him further, you are mapping out a path for me to do so most effectively by detailing all of his defenses? My interest is actually in justice rather than persecution, and pursuit of justice by bring heretofore obscure but verifiable information to greater prominence is in the public interest, and so therefore falls within the admirable educational mission of Wikipedia, which I firmly believe in. Thanks for helping me and I'll address some of your points raised most recently later. Regards, Luitgard (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is not a concern of mine whether or not you pursue him, and I don't know what I'm doing that maps out anything. If you tried to declare war on Russia tomorrow and I speculated from my armchair about where their defenses are, that wouldn't give you a tactical advantage over Russia. I'll respond to your writings below but in the meantime my points don't really need to be addressed inasmuch as I hope you would consider them internally before disparaging anyone. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

First, you downplay your writing abilities. You write reasonably well. It's your reading/listening skills that I wonder about, no offense intended. You say "disparaging anyone", but I have no trouble praising him as well. I would say that objectivity on the subject might not be your strong point. See my recent comments on the List of Spammers and Greg Tseng articles as well. Also, twice now, once under your name and once by IP address, you have edited the article on Greg Tseng to make it less critical of him just before there were remarkable spikes in readership of the article on him. For someone who is not at all associated with Tseng, that's quite an accomplishment. :) And your analyses are not that bad IMHO, just lopsided! ;) More below.Luitgard (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello again UWF, I don't know if you're familiar with the story of crushlink, but you can read the Salon article if you'd like and I'll fill you in on any details you want. It was in 2002 that the matter transpired and it was the first time Tseng came to my attention. Since I owned my own domains, I was able to create 20 email addresses to give to the bot so that I could get the name of the person who was represented as having a "crush", and then watched as every one of the 20 e-mail addresses I'd created received misleading e-mails saying someone had a "crush" on them! And who was the one who had a crush on me? My friend Catherine. She just used my e-mail address to get to the total of 20, as fake email addresses did not work because the bot pinged them all to be sure they were active before counting them towards the total. She had no idea that every e-mail address she used as a guess would be sent e-mail saying someone had a "crush" on them, and that if the the new victims rendered up 20 more victims, then they would be falsely informed it was her who had a crush on them! She was so embarrassed as she is a shy woman, and she didn't trust anything on the Internet for years. (Granted, this resultant mistrust might not have been a bad thing. :) Greg and Johann schleier-smith were reported to be the only employees of Jumpstart at the time, and Tseng has a clearly stated love of "viral", that is to say self-replicating or self-propagating systems. Looks like he was more involved that you seem to realize or be willing to admit, from the very beginning. Also, given the appearance of unconvincing but often vehement anonymous attackers of anyone who criticized or even questioned Tseng in the past, often labeled astroturfing with some justification, the fact you are so upset by my measured and thoroughly documented attempts to bring Tseng's questionable past in to the public eye strikes me as rather interesting. Now, when he says some thing like, "it was a one time event, a technical glitch that was paused 3 days after it was launched", anybody who is willing to do a minimum of research will know better. If Greg were to repent, come clean, and donate money to helping victims of child abuse or some other worth charity, I'd support him. His mind could surely come up with less thoughtless ways to make his businesses grow, and he would be better off if he did! I'd even be willing to help him. I want what is best for all, including Greg himself in the long term, but I will try my best to stop him from hurting others in the short term by exposing him for what he is and has been. Nothing else seems to even slow him down! I hope you now understand my motives some what better. Peace be with you UWF. :) Luitgard (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the story about Crushlink but if it happened in 2002 then Tseng is most likely a copycat. The only time I remember getting one of these was in 1999 when I got an email from "Pimpin Cupid" and I put in the names of most of the people I could think of and nothing really came back (ironically, a later round of these DID originate with someone who later became my girlfriend, but she didn't have a "crush" on me at the time and she sent it out to everyone we knew). At the time I remember tracing it back to where Pimpin Cupid was a group named Spark at Harvard, and it was written up in the Crimson (I just googled Pimpin Cupid and it came up here http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2001/10/18/the-rise-and-success-of-sparknotes/) -- I emailed them and said "you guys should change the system because most of the emails are from people who got the previous email from someone else, not from people who have crushes" (at the time I wasn't savvy enough to realize that would be the whole point and that they would profit from that in some way). In any event this story doesn't have a point -- it's just that if Tseng or his buddies implemented the same thing in 2002, that doesn't necessarily make them the crafty innovators in the realm of viral marketing that you think they are (and it also indicates that the process was probably a little more routine "oh yeah, this worked for Spark, we should do it too ... it'll take someone a day to write the code" as opposed to "I've just had the greatest idea and it's going to make us all billionaires!"). UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good point. One could argue that Tseng is not so original, he just takes someone else's ideas and then amplifies them, and it is an approach that has worked reasonably well for him. For example, I never received e-mail from "Pimpin Cupid" nor did anybody I know, but I got multiple e-mails from crushlink, as did my friends. Now that could be pure chance, but a similar situation holds for Facebook and Tagged. Maybe that's why Tseng can't come up with positive ways to make money or make his firms grow that impact me like his negative actions toward those ends. Maybe he's not so much creative as he is a copycat who just takes things a step further, in the wrong direction unfortunately, than his predecessors. As I said above, your analysis is helpful, if one sided for whatever reason. I think you're a better obsessive than me, but the downside to that is that your vision seems to be focused more narrowly. I guess that stands to reason. Still, our thought processes seem to compliment each other, so thanks for the dialog. I'm actually beginning to appreciate you, in spite of your monomaniacal nature and the "douchestain" comment. Regards, Luitgard (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Luitgard, I would suggest you read WP:3RR just so we are all clear on the guideline. Additionally, if there are violations of any Wikipedia guidelines or if an editor makes edits outside guidelines they should be dealt with as such by using accepted Wikipedia methods or processes. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Greg_Tseng_and_disruptive_editing. Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I need to prioritise real life endeavours during the week; my edits since Saturday have been mostly simple vandalism reversion and the like. I might have a little time tonight (roughly 11 hours from this timestamp), but in any case, there's no need to wait for me. Anyone can make suggestions on the talk page, though I'd suggest not making substantive changes to the article itself until everyone's had a chance to comment, including UWF.

Please remember to be vigilant about maintaining WP:CIVIL, too.

Meanwhile, your recent additions to List of spammers indicate there's new info to be added to Tagged, though once again you might want to make proposals on the talk page first.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for touching base Adrian. Please do contribute as you have the time, resources and inclination to do so. The Tseng talk page is getting kind of lively with uncivil comments joining the fray again I'm afraid, but they are not from me. And yes, some of the information from the Tseng page should definitely be added to the Tagged page as well. Meanwhile, in spite or perhaps because of the Tseng page getting 250+ hits in one day, UWF has rather strong feelings that it shouldn't exist.  ;-p Best regards, Luitgard (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Was that the day that we each reverted the article 20 times? Because that accounts for 40 hits, and I'd be willing to bet it accounted for 100 if you count hitting refresh. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

IDK, but if I had to guess, I'd say we wouldn't count for more than 50 even if refreshes count, and I don't think they do as I don't see a spike on days when I do extensive and repeated edits on articles. Meanwhile, was this you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.18.156.43 Luitgard (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually I'd been planning to take a proper look at all that as soon as I finished a gigantic wad of marking. Which, co-incidentally, occurred today! Exhausted at the moment, will investigate soon... Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

We can make a concerted effort to get Synergee to discuss the matter with us on the talk page, I'll leave a message on Synergee's talk page and see if we can get Synergee to go through the normal process of reaching a consensus. But failing that, I don't know what else to do but take it to dispute resolution. Luitgard (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Deepest thanks for your effort on behalf of Wikipedia and your attention to this matter! Luitgard (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for not getting to this yet... The last week has been far crazier than I'd expected, and I've barely kept up with my watchlist  . Meanwhile, if you want something to leave you breathless, check this out. I criticised it at the bottom of Talk:Tagged. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not to worry, at least we now have a suspicion as to why someone sympathetic to Tseng might want to edit the Wikipedia entry on him. They don't want the shoddy nature of what look to be planted articles on him to be readily apparent by just consulting the first search hit under his name. I guess because he's gotten away with such behavior for so long, he thinks he can keep it up? The effort he puts into this reminds me of Scientology. Making sure the articles on him and Tagged reflect the truth might require similar protections to those afforded other article that have been the subject of prolonged campaigns of manipulation. Thanks for some fascinating information.Luitgard (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply