Talk:Greg Tseng

Untitled

OK folks, I'm new at this, but this article was really needed as Greg Tseng is quite newsworthy these days and tagged.com is the subject of legal action by the NY State Atty Gen, so I felt it a public service to get this started. Please help in any way you can that maintains a neutral point of view. I'll try and round up more references, but any help on that would be much appreciated.

As much as we all hate Greg Tseng we need to keep neutral POV on Wikipedia and save the opinions for blogs. Greg is 29 years old and based on all the info I dug up it's hard to summarize his life or even his entrepreneurial career as "controversial history involving three allegations of fraud and or misrepresentation by bulk commercial e-mail." The allegations are not of fraud, they were against his companies not him personally (and well documented on the Tagged wikipedia page), and it's tough to say that defines him. That's like saying Bill Gates is best known for the antitrust trial against Microsoft.Biographylover (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Biographylover, I'm glad you've taken an interest in this page, though I've noticed that this is the only Wikipedia page you've ever edited under your current name. This begs the question of why you suddenly decided to put such effort into this page and this page alone. Are you being paid for your efforts, do you have ties to Greg Tseng, or are you Greg Tseng? If you say "we all hate" Greg Tseng, why would that be? It would be due to his "controversial history involving three allegations of fraud and or misrepresentation by bulk commercial e-mail.", wouldn't it? So I think it would be safe to say that is high on the list of his defining characteristics. What did the three companies that sent the e-mail have in common? Greg Tseng in controlling position, correct? If you wish to make this page a point of dispute, that's fine and good, as the more attention that is bought to the topic of Greg Tseng, the better. I do not hate him, but scrutiny of his questionable actions seems a good thing. While you've improved the quality of the page, I fear your mission here is not to promote a neutral POV about a man you say "we all hate", but to make this article more flattering or less critical of him. Still, let us try and reason together. What language would you agree belongs in the first paragraph to represent in NPOV terms the extremely controversial nature of our subject? As for whether the word fraud has been used to describe the actions of Greg's companies, it has, but if you would prefer to use "deceptive Email Promotions, Identity Theft, and Invasion of Privacy", that would reflect the legal opinion of the NY Atty Gen. Luitgard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

Hey Luitgard, I'm not being paid by anyone, I noticed this page was pretty new so I could contribute a lot. I will turn my efforts to other new-ish pages once we reach some agreement on Greg Tseng. I really don't think the controversy is a defining characteristic of the man, or even of his companies. Tagged is the 3rd largest social network in the US and has a millions of rapid fans but the press just keeps focusing on the NYAG issue. Has anyone considered that Andrew Cuomo is just trying to get as much press for himself as possible in his run for Governor next year (same thing Eliot Spitzer did). Cuomo also investigated and settled with Facebook in 2007 and issues a press release every day about how he's saving the world (today's was him going after FedEx). I agree we should highlight facts on Tagged and by extension on Greg Tseng but to put it in the top seems negative and not neutral. Let me make some edits and see what you think... Biographylover (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Biographylover, I look forward to you putting the same remarkable degree of effort into other Wikipedia bios that you've put into this one, entirely by chance you claim. I doubt that any informed individual who looks at your edits will believe you are a disinterested party. I would say that Tseng is best known for the controversies surrounding his astoundingly prolific history of sending unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail, and that in this regard he is a clearly a repeat offender. He is far better know for that than his work as a "scientist", but you put the obscure positives in the first paragraph and give scant mention to Tseng's transgressions. Since you write "We all hate" Tseng, how would you choose to explain why that's the case? Where are you going to give those actions prominent mention? Should we also add a section on accusations of "Astroturfing" that have been made against Tagged and by extension Tseng? That would help people understand why any positive comments about Tseng and tagged that are made in public forums are to be viewed with suspicion. From what I see of your edits so far, I do not find them acceptable and will likely be forced to submit this article for dispute resolution. But I will give you a chance to respond before we do that. As for the NYAG, I'd have to say I'd trust him before Tseng. ;) Luitgard (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Luitgard, "we all hate" was partially said in jest, I'm aware of both the positives and negatives, but we need to keep the article neutral even if we have some negative feelings. Clearly not everyone hates him otherwise Tagged wouldn't be the 3rd largest social networking site in the US with millions of happy users (I'm on the site and you could say I'm thus not a disinterested party but then would 80 million people be disqualified? :). That's how I know of Greg Tseng and have followed the controversy closely. The astroturfing accusations are precisely that - accusations - I don't know of any verifiable claim of astroturfing and I know Tagged posted links to various articles about Tagged and left it open to their users to comment or not. I think it's too cynical to say "any positive comments about Tseng and Tagged that are made in public forums are to be viewed with suspicion" and that frame of mind will likely skew POV to be negative. If everything was negative then Tagged wouldn't exist today. Suggest some edits and let's try to come to agreement. Dispute resolution is fine too. Biographylover (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Biographylover, I'd say your jest was quite relevant and your comments often sound like tagged PR copy, but you have improved the article, and if you do the same for others on Wikipedia, I'll be delighted as long as you don't distort or hide the truth. In the spirit of your suggestion, I've made more edits and await your response. I would remind you that a prolonged dispute will draw more attention to the details of Tseng's rather interesting past, which was heretofore not so well known. This could perhaps inspire other state AGs to follow Cuomo's lead. There's a saying that may apply in this case, "The more you resist, the longer it persists." Maybe it's time to explore those allegations of Astroturfing? Luitgard (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Luitgard, what do you think of my latest edits? I think it's a good compromise. Let's get to agreement and then I can move on to another bio. I don't care if other AGs follow Cuomo's lead, I'd just like to get to a factual well-written article with neutral POV. I've investigated the astroturfing claim but couldn't find any references, can you? If there are credible references then they should be cited on here and on Tagged's wikipedia page. Thanks, Biographylover (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Biographylover, I'm distressed that you are not allowing the article to show that Tseng's companies have a clear and long term pattern of committing the same kinds of transgressions over a period of many years. Why did you delete the word repeated when referring to the conduct in question? It is objective and factual. In reference to your comment,"keeping one FTC quote but not others, want to keep focus on Greg e.g. the Salon quote was about Greg himself." Greg was in control of these two companies, the links between the two companies committing the same types of violations at widely differing times were Greg and his long time friend, Johann Schleier-Smith. How else do you which to illustrate this? Do you dispute the fact that Tseng was in control of these two companies? As for your comment, 'took out "remarkably similar" opinion line and shortened the line after', I guess I'll find the exact terms used in each story that are the same, use a thesaurus to show the synonyms and quote extensively unless you are willing to address the pattern of behavior that has been demonstrated over 7 years by the companies that Tseng has controlled. For now, I'm just going to undo your last two revisions and see if you can revise the text in a fashion that addresses my concerns stated above. As for the first paragraph, if an article in the country's most popular new weekly calling tagged.com "The World's Most Annoying Website" and legal action by the state AG of NY don't denote "considerable" controversy, I'm hard pressed to say what does, but I'd prefer the article focus on the repeated pattern I've mentioned above, so let us work on that. You're a pretty good writer, see what you can do. Luitgard (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Biographylover, Missed your line "While Greg has publicly addressed the Tagged issue, there are no known references of him publicly addressing any of the Jumpstart issues.", so I added it back to the end of the article. Otherwise, it works for me for now. Best regards, Luitgard (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Biographylover (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, The quote below is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section and gives the proper form for the introductory paragraph for a Wikipedia article. Please notice the last sentence of this excerpt, where it pointedly says any notable controversies belong in the lead. Biographylover's attempts to remove mention of the considerable controversy surrounding Greg Tseng history of misleading e-mails, which have in two instances prompted legal action as well as prominent critical mention in the national press, from the lead paragraph are not in keeping with Wikipedia's guide lines. Additionally, as Greg Tseng has a seven year history of ruses and deception on the Internet, any attempt to remove or downplay his controversial actions by an editor of this article should be viewed with great suspicion.

"The lead section, lead (sometimes lede), or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Luitgard (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC

To whom it may concern, I had an exchange with one of the moderators over whether the Controversy section belongs at the end or the beginning of the article. If the subject is controversial, it would be justified to place it early on. Not even Biographylover denies the controversy surrounding Tseng, she or he just wishes to de-emphasize it, judging by the comments above. That is not NPOV. Moving controversy section to the top again. Exchange with moderator below. "...my chief concern is whether the Controversy section is indeed supposed to be the last item, and if so, why? Regards, Luitgard (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC) I do not think there is anything that specifically dictates that controversial items should be at the end of an article. If part or all of someone's notability is because of controversy I would assume the items should be discussed upfront, or at least alluded to in the introduction. In the case where notability is not determined by controversy is probably not a bad idea to move the section to the end and not lead with it. It probably makes for a better balanced article. ttonyb (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)" Luitgard (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How do we remove the white space the contents box creates? A lot of space is wasted at the top. I know how to fix that in HTML, but not here on Wikipedia. Luitgard (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is a way to remove the space. Take a look at Help:Section for options related to the TOC. ttonyb (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead Ttonyb1. I'll read it, and see if there is someway to work with the issue, maybe make the collapsed state the default? If not, you'd have to admit that there's room for improvement. None of us would accept that white space on a Web site we created. ;) Luitgard (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree Controversy flows better after Entrepreneur but don't you think the whole article flows better in chronological order? Early life, Scientist, Entrepreneur, Controversy? E.g. if the controversy was during Scientist then we might do Early life, Scientist, Controversy, Entrepreneur. But the first paragraph provides a good summary and then the sections seem to flow best in chrono order? I won't make the change but what do you think? Otherwise I think the recent changes are all good. Thanks especially for making the references section nice and detailed. I wasn't sure how to do that... Biographylover (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Biographylover, I guess since there's been a major edit to the page that portrays Tseng in a less favorable light, you're back. When did you say you'd work on other bios? And how did you form the impression that the controversy section was to go at the end of bios? I know I'm to assume good faith on your part, but those two items make me wonder. As for the order of events, I'd say it's a toss-up as to whether Tseng is better known for his accomplishments on the Net, or his transgressions. Wikipedia convention seems to be that a subject's better known traits go first. I will say that if his companies hadn't sent deceptive e-mails to me and my friends, I'd have no idea who he was. But the reason I decided the accomplishments go first is as follows. The list of companies and subsidiaries he's created set the stage for the discussion of the questionable ethical liberties Tseng has taken over the years through those companies. Ones that he and Johann Schleier-Smith have largely, if not fully, controlled. I would point out that credible sources have said that tagged.com's traffic rankings were inflated by their deceptive e-mail campaign. Could you find us a citation on that? If not, don't worry, I will. It's just that since I've included positive things about Tseng, it would give a certain credence to the good faith assumption about your motives if you were to find things that reflected poorly on him to add to the article. What would be really wonderful would be if you could find any comments by Tseng on the fact that he's been using his companies to send deceptive e-mail for seven years, which makes it less credible to claim the last instance was due to an oversight or technical failings. How do you propose we cover that in the article, give his lack of comment on it? Also, I think I've found examples of Tagged sending out the same types of e-mails as far back as 2007. Now that it's becoming better known, Tseng really deserves an article that explores his dual nature in a major publication. As a lover of biographies, don't you agree it could be great reading? A modern day non-fiction Cyber Citizen Kane? Peace be with you. Luitgard (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How about the title "Tsyber Tsociopath Tseng"? (This is, of course, wholly a joke, not an attempt at medical diagnosis, any serious or even meaningful comment on character, or any legally significant assertion.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.124.1.5 (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, that is kind of clever, and I did laugh, but I'll let a mod decide if it belongs here. But that disclaimer! Are you an attorney? Luitgard (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Luitgard, I tried to work with you and thought we wrote a good biography together. Now all I did was ask a question, didn't even make an edit, and I get this sort of heated response? I'm not sure why you are questioning my motives. In my previous discussions I really just tried to stay on the facts but you're obviously making it personal and you are clearly biased. I guess you got some emails you didn't want and now you want to skewer the guy. Go right ahead. I don't have anything to gain here other than the satisfaction of contributing to Wikipedia. But your attacks don't make me feel welcome so I will stop working on the Greg Tseng page and move on to another page. Not feeling so peaceful, Biographylover (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. Almost all bios I read on Wikipedia have Controversy at end so I thought that was standard. Sorry that offended you so much.

Cher(e) Biographylover, Actions speak louder than worlds. If you really love bios, start or enhance some here on Wikipedia, and do good work therein, the same quality of work you did here, but without a seeming agenda, I'll respect you greatly. I'll even work hard with you if you'd like. If you've checked, this is not the only article I've worked on and I hope to work on many others. If you'd add material or edits to this article that didn't serve Tseng's interests, that would surely help. As for the 20 or so e-mails I've received from Tseng's companies, that's not what disturbs me. I could even live with the spam that the systems I've administered have received from his companies. But a shy friend of mine was hurt and humiliated by crushlink, others I know were professionally compromised by tagged.com's actions when all of their work contacts were "tagged". Now multiply that by thousands. Perhaps more disturbing is the sort of role model Tseng sets for children and others. He has to be made to face his actions for the good of all. Why you are seemingly blind to all that, I cannot say. I'm not blind to Tseng's accomplishments and an article on him that omitted those accomplishments would be the poorer for that omission. The fact that he's capable of such accomplishments, but seems to behave so thoughtlessly, makes him all the more interesting. If you really do feel mistreated in this exchange, maybe you can understand that someone who creates a climate of deception, mistrust and manipulation on the Internet is at least partially to blame for that. Peace be with you. Luitgard (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. Sheryl Sandberg, good choice. I admired her defense of Larry Summers, but I hope you don't just write fluff pieces. All people have good and bad qualities in some measure, and an encyclopedia needs to show both. Leave exclusive praise to corporate profiles and propaganda. :) Luitgard (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ttonyb1, why past tense instead of present? "However, there was evidence that tagged.com's controversial e-mail campaign dated back to the middle of 2007." The evidence still exist as does the controversy. Not that this is a major matter, but using the past tense might imply the evidence no long exist. Also, can't quarrel with the bio being in chronological order, but could you point me to the section of the very long Manual Of Style (MOS) page that deals with this, so that I can familiarize myself with it? TIA Luitgard (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tense - because it was discovered and existed in the past, not in the current time. The WP:MOS does not deal with chronology, but it does read better this way. It keeps all the bio stuff together and follows with non-bio text. The position of the "See also" is discussed in WP:LAYOUT. ttonyb (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello all, this article is linked to by three other topical articles. That seems to be enough to relieve it from the orphan designation. If you wish to claim it is an orphan, please explain why. Luitgard (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear that you have a personal vendetta and that your goal is to make this the top Google link for Greg Tseng. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia and I think you should reconsider your own priorities if it means this much to you to target another individual. As much as it annoys me that one person controls all of the edits to articles like Lost Season 6, that is at least a well meaning individual who wants to take ownership of a TV show -- you on the other hand are specifically trying to damage another living human being which is OBVIOUSLY against all the principles outlined by Wikipedia. I find your actions reprehensible and will do what is necessary to neutralize them. And yes, this article is for all intents and purposes, an orphan. List of spammers sources an article that doesn't even have Greg Tseng's name in it, List of entrepreneurs is about as wishywashy an "article" as I can imagine, and that leaves us with "CEO of Tagged". Big F'in deal. It's an orphan. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One is to assume good faith on the part of Wikipedia editors. If you feel this article is unbalanced or unfair, please work with me to make it better! That a Wikipedia article is top ranked should be a point of pride to all of us on Wikipedia. Greg Tseng is a fairly accomplished individual and deserves to be on the list of Internet entrepreneurs IMHO, and mentioned as a distinguished alum of his high school too, even if he is controversial. If you do not like the quality of this or that article, work to improve it! I'll help you! I do not wish to damage Tseng, only make sure that this article is balanced and informative about him. He's complex and gifted. The more interesting aspects of his past have not always been as well know as they should be. I can try to find articles with Mr. Tseng's name in them to reference in the spammers section if that concerns you, but as he is unequivocally the CEO, controller and creator of Tagged, and was in the same position for Jumpstart, I don't know why that's of such concern to you. Hiding behind a corporate veil will not work in this case. Still, I'll work on that now as I notice that you seem to be involved in a dispute on that page too. I hope to be able to address your concerns on both topics soon. If need be we can go to an amicable dispute resolution. I'd already asked for a review of the article to be sure it was fair before you expressed your concerns, and what you've expressed gives the matter added urgency. Let's hope we all learn from this and make the Wikipedia more useful for all. :) Luitgard (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've added the Time magazine citation to the spammers list mention on Mr. Tseng. It is a very well known, credible source, was the top ranked article on the magazine's Web site for days, mentions Greg Tseng by name and calls the behavior in question spamming. Also, in the list of references is one from the Better Business Bureau stating that Tseng is the CEO of tagged.com. If he is not responsible for it's actions, who is? If someone has an agenda here or is biased, are you sure it's me? As far as being notable, Tseng went to both Harvard & Stanford, he has a resume unheard of for spammers and tagged.com is a successful company. His is a story worth telling and here is the place to do it. Luitgard (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure it's you. The reason I am sure of that is I am sitting in front of a computer, and I have access to Google. By doing a simple search such as "luitgard greg tseng" I get a very clear picture of what's going on here. At http://foolswisdom.com/tagged-com-spam-phishing-nice-guys/ we see you insinuating that he is a serial fraud and spammer. At Ttonyb1's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ttonyb1 we see that "Wikipedia rules!" because you got this article up to #1 on Google, Bing, and Yahoo and that the person you conversed with above is your "one-time nemesis". Also I can just scroll up on this page and see how your innocence was lost when your friend got an email from Crushlink and some co-workers got an email from Tagged, and now by your own admission "He has to be made to face his actions" (just reading that you intend to use Wikipedia to play judge jury and executioner makes my blood run cold). How would you like it if someone googled <luitgard's full name in real life> and the #1 result was "Lui Douchestain is an obsessive wikipedia contributor who has a history of online stalking and harassment of D-list celebrities such as Greg Tseng and Carrie Prejean." That's probably not the first thing you want coming up on Google, am I right? And given that wikipedia makes it crystal clear that they do not condone the authorship of content like what I just wrote, even though it's true, and because no one knows your real name, you are safe from this kind of stuff. Whereas your targets are famous from competing in Miss USA, Mathcounts, and various other professional endeavors that aren't inherently creepy and because a couple thousand people know their real names that makes them "noteworthy" and opens the door for you to smear them in public. It really sickens me and I hope that you are one day "made to face your actions". UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, you seem to be taking this very personally. I have mixed feelings about Prejean and Tseng because they both try to spin the facts in a way that hides the truth and ended up getting caught in rather embarrassing situations. Tseng's long history at this point speaks for itself. Interestingly enough, the biggest conflict I had in editing the Prejean article was in her defense, and there are things I really admire about her, but I guess you missed that. I try to follow the truth wherever it takes me. If someone came in and removed mention of Tseng's accomplishments, I'd fight them tooth and nail. But this is not about me or you. This is about facts and objectivity. If there is something in the article that is untrue, challenge it. If Greg Tseng is D list, then let the article on tagged.com reflect that. As long as tagged.com is important and Tseng is making history as a very atypical spammer and rouge Internet entrepreneur, this article is relevant. I don't feel that Tseng is D list, I feel his talents have been misapplied. I have yet to write about his business contacts and they are impressive. The links to and from this article will multiply and increase in quality as the article has. If you feel it needs to change, work within the system. I guess I'm flattered at the extent of your research on me, but I doubt it's relevant. If I felt I had something to hide, I would have done as much. Dispute resolution, here we come. :) Luitgard (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Here are my comments to Ttonyb1 in full. "Hello Ttonyb1, Greg's company tagged.com has just settled yet another legal action against it for spamming and deceptive practices, so I updated the article yet again. My one time nemesis biography lover is long gone, and as I remembered you were fair and even handed, I was hoping you'd take a look at the latest version of the article and make any changes or suggestions you saw fit as your time and interest allowed. I'm please to say the the Wikipedia article on Greg Tseng has risen to the first hit for his name on Bing, Google and Yahoo! Thanks for your help and guidance in the past that helped make that possible. Wikipedia rules!  :)" If I'm opposed to objectivity, why did I ask for review in the absence of someone like yourself? Maybe I want a good and balanced article? I hope that working together, we can improve the article. Discussion of links to Reid Hoffman, Raj Kapoor, & Allen Morgan coming up. Cheers! Luitgard (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, state your case please. :) Luitgard (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My case is that what you are doing is wrong. Wikipedia is not a tool for anyone to use to smear another human being and get good SEO. They make it perfectly clear that that is not ok. You have a single-minded obsession with smearing Greg Tseng on a personal level, not a professional level. You could say whatever you want about Tagged and it would paint a clear enough picture and other people would contribute to maintain balance. People care about Tagged -- obviously a lot of people hate it and presumably some people love it. No one cares about Greg Tseng. No one's going to keep you in check, and you know that (you are obviously a smart person and a much better writer than I am so I'm not even gonna bother trying to add content to offset what you write -- besides not everyone has to add, there is plenty of addition by subtraction that takes place on Wikipedia). If you really sat down and took a whole day and imagined that everyone that googled your name was going to see it associated with the worst thing that could be said about your company, I'm sure you'd feel very uncomfortable at the end of the day. (line break) What is really disturbing is that this page was down and you brought it back up. You are doing everything you can think of to make this page as public as possible and keep it as negative as possible. There is no market for this page. No one cares about reading it. You don't care about reading it. All you care is that it is the first thing that shows up on Google under his name, and that his first Google link calls him a spammer. That is so far against the spirit of Wikipedia that it makes me sick. You need to be stopped. That is my case. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your concerns. Believe it or not, about 20 people per day look at this page on average. There is a market for it. As for my motives, maybe you can look at my talk page where I tried to answer your concerns. Feel free to respond there as well. I'll agree to leave the page as it is now if you will agree to do the same until we can get mediation, ok? Luitgard (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. As for the early deletion, it was within minutes of creation and it was not finished or even close to ready for viewing. I though no one would even look at it for days. Then, poof, it was deleted. I then worked on it off line and posted again in a more presentable and balanced format and it was accepted. It really got better when Bio Lover jumped in, even if for questionable reasons. I think he/she was a professional writer. Hope to see your response on my talk page if you are so moved. I look forward to mediation. Regards Luitgard (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I have restored the article to a version that was in existence prior to the back and forth started. Both of you have exhibited edit warring behavior and I suggest it stop before you are banned from editing or creating articles for even a short period. BTW - this activity will generally not get someone "deleted from Wikipedia", if the behavior is a habit it might get them banned indefinitely.

I suggest both of you step back from the article for at least 24 hours and before either of you make an edit, you propose the edit on the talk page and discuss it in a rational, calm, and civil manner. If you cannot come to an agreement, then the edit should not be entered into the article unless there is independent validation that the edit is a valid entry. Let us take a metered approach to any further edits. There are avenues available to all of us to use to avoid the back and forth warring that has been experienced here and I hope we can use them before either of you are suspended for any length of time.

I hope you both agree to follow the above process. Please feel free to contact me there are further outbreaks of discussion. ttonyb (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ttonyb1, I'm still learning and that's why I asked for help from you and others. I'll make time to try to better acquaint myself with proper procedures over the weekend. Please believe me, I tried to discuss the changes in a "rational, calm, and civil manner". But as you can see, it didn't work out so well! ;-p Thanks again, regards, Luitgard (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Ttonyb1, thank you for your efforts as always. As you likely know by now, the suggested 24 hour cooling off period was not observed by all parties. The article was unilaterally reverted to a prior edit by UnnotableWorldFigure without consultation or consensus. I will propose restoration of the word spammer to the intro of the article here on the talk page and solicit UnnotableWorldFigure's comments on that proposal before proceeding further. As always, any guidance is appreciated. Regards, Luitgard (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the word spammer

Two companies that Tseng was CEO of were fined for actions that would fit most definitions of spamming, one repeatedly. Though it has been claimed that some of the D.A.s & A.G.s that brought legal action against Tseng's companies had ulterior motives, Greg Abbott and the Federal Trade Commission both actually made rather compelling cases against both Jumpstart and tagged.com, and neither seem to be seeking higher office. Both companies have been written up in the press for those practices and Tseng was mentioned as the CEO in many of those articles. Tseng is at least as well know for his companies' spamming as he is for being an Internet entrepreneur. Most of those who know of him likely never would have heard of him if not for the spamming. I feel that if one belongs in the first sentence of this article, the other does. Comments please. Best regards, Luitgard (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've a few comments to make on this... Just give me an hour or so to pull things together. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response Adrian. I look forward to seeing your comments. Regards, Luitgard (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

A few thoughts on the current ([1]) lead:

1. The description of Tagged as the "3rd largest social networking site in the US" is inappropriate for the reasons given by User:Ucanlookitup in this thread at Talk:Tagged.
2. Tseng's running hobby is irrelevant to his notability and does not belong in the lead.
3. I'm not comfortable with directly labelling Tseng himself as a spammer, for the reasons I've given at Talk:List_of_spammers.
4. The lead ought to focus on why the subject of the article is notable. Tseng is notable for the fact that multiple companies he has been involved in – especially Jumpstart Technologies and Tagged but also Crushlink and hi5 – have been severely criticised for their unethical mass emailing, culminating in some gigantic civil penalities in the cases of Jumpstart and Tagged. The lead should be dominated by a summary these events. UnnotableWorldFigure may complain that this is "slandering" Tseng, but if a carefully written, neutral summary of the reliable sources discussing a person happens to present that person in an unfavourable light, so be it. WP:NPOV does not demand that negative material be "balanced" by positive material.

I'd hoped to show a new lead draft here, but it's 2 am in Adelaide and I'm exhausted. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Adrian, I accept the arguments you've made on the list of spammers talk page and think your solution is fair. As such, let us drop the word spammer from the intro. Would it be fair to say "Controversial American Internet entrepreneur" in the lead? Hope you get a good night's sleep! Looking forward to your draft when it appears. :) Regards, Luitgard (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "controversial American Internet entrepreneur" or any permutation thereof is fine. I still think there is an open question as to whether or not he personally warrants his own article -- the alternative being to have Greg Tseng redirect to Tagged. I know you think he is a fascinating person on some level, Luitgard, but until he does something outside of Tagged / Jumpstart / Crushlink / hi5 incubation that would warrant its own Wikipedia article (his math and science accomplishments in high school are impressive, but there are thousands of individuals across the world whose high school accomplishments are the same or better and yet clearly don't warrant their own articles), it seems to me that his notability is entirely analagous to, say, the winner of an obscure reality show. For example I just spent 5 seconds and found an article on Brian Heidik which should almost certainly be merged into Survivor: Thailand, even though we'll lose the juicy paragraph at the bottom about his personal life. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Big thanks for getting back with your thoughts, your input is valued. I'd say we probably have a consensus, but let's see what Adrian has to write. Pardon my being brief, but it is Saturday night! ;) I'll check back in tomorrow. Regards, Luitgard (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again UWF, if I may call you that. I now have the time to address the point of notability here in greater detail. Tseng has touched the lives of tens of millions of people, some, like the happy members of tagged.com, in a positive way, others, the tens of millions who have received deceptive and misleading unsolicited commercial email (hereafter called spam for sake of brevity) from Tagged, Jumpstart, Crushlink, and hi5, in a negative way. He is likely one of the top five people in social network creation and administration and also probably, thru his corporations, one of the top five names associated with contemporary spam. Tagged.com is only one of the four organizations Tseng was involved with that engaged in very controversial e-mailing practices, and one of only two of the companies that he was founder and CEO of that paid multiple large or record settlements for misleading e-mail practices. How could all of this be covered in the article on tagged.com? Then look at the astounding amount of participation, comment and controversy this article has generated from people who claim to be in no way related to Tseng, tagged.com, any of his other companies or competing companies. Add to that 4,807 people have now read it, and that thanks in large part to you, more editors have become involved with it and its SE rankings have likely increased. Did you know that the day that the article about tagged.com's $650k settlement with the San Fransisco D.A.'s office was announced, there were 66 hits on the article? On one day when other such news was announced, 120+. On the 23rd of this month, 132 hits were registered and on the 24th, 257. (Which might explain why someone was so desirous of altering this page and others to make them less revealing of certain inconvenient truths for those two days.) This month has shown a record for the article of 964 hits. Hardly an unnoticed or unappreciated page. Then please consider the arguments I made to you on my own talk page to address your personal concerns. Last but not least, Tseng is partnered on the board of tagged.com with one of the most powerful and connected people in the S.F. bay area, Reid Hoffman. Given Tseng's colorful past, is Reid Hoffman's association with him and tagged.com controversial? People have noticed and commented on this association and I don't see how it could be discussed or referenced in the Reid Hoffman article without a separate article on Tseng. As always, your thoughts on these topics are welcome. Best regards, Luitgard (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK wait ... so what exactly are the dots we're trying to connect here? We're just saying that Hoffman is associated with Tagged, and we need some place to let people know that Jumpstart is a predecessor of Tagged? And that's why Tseng needs his own article? Please correct me if I got that all wrong. Anyways, I just pulled up the Tagged article, and I have a reasonably large monitor but I only had to look about halfway down my screen before I got the information about Jumpstart's association with Tagged. It seems to me like all the "notable" information about Tseng is encapsulated in that one paragraph on Tagged, and unless you have pictures of Hoffman and Tseng snorting coke together off the bodies of dead hookers I'm not sure why anything other than Hoffman's association with Tagged itself (Tagged being unquestionably noteworthy, so its article is not going anywhere any time soon) is necessary to get that point across you were trying to make, or to give you a forum where you can discuss it. Is there a personal connection between Hoffman and Tseng that goes deeper than Hoffman and Tagged? UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

UWF, as of yet, strangely enough, there is no mention of Hoffman in the Tagged article, but I'm sure that will be remedied soon, and if you want to put all the aspects of Tseng's colorful past in the Tagged article, I guess you could, but it would be something of a contortion. Arguably uncivil and irrelevant comments about illegal drug use and dead sex workers aside, there have been at least three separate mentions of what Hoffman is doing at a questionable company like Tagged from sources on the Web. And the more people know about Tseng's past, which for better or for worse includes a few other colorful episodes than just the legal settlements made by Jumpstart and Tagged, the more they will likely wonder about Hoffman's association with Tseng. Add to that the fact that thousands of people have read this article. 250+ in just one day, http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Greg_Tseng. As it seems possible that you know before hand when that readership will spike, given your uncanny ability to make Tseng friendly edits just before those spikes happen, I would have to wonder if it is possible that you might have a reason to want this article to go away, and that perhaps that reason has nothing to do with the public's interest. In any case, if you look at readership stats for the tagged article, http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Tagged , you can see that the two vary independently. It seems there is an interest in Tseng separate from Tagged. Over the past few days, 4-500 hits were recorded on the page. You want these people and/or search engines to have to look elsewhere for the info they seek. Why not work with me to make this a good article on Tseng and have them come here? Luitgard (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Luitgard, I am curious whether or not you have any statistics about readership for other articles that wind up on the administrative noticeboard. Or for that matter do you know if any of the hits on this page actually did spike from anywhere besides wikipedia administrators itself. You may be right about external reasons for spikes in readership, or you may not -- I literally have no idea. Your insinuations that I know when to step in because of a future spike are baseless, and I don't know whether I should be offended, be amused, or just start looking for ways to profit from my knack for predicting web traffic. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello UWF, was this you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.18.156.43 Best regards, Luitgard (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Luitgard, please stay on topic (and feel free to move that comment to my talk page if you care so much). Also your latest revert to this article was just silly. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat, but a history of edit warring, being blocked from editing and a prior edit of this article in a timely fashion seem to pick up topics that you've previously discussed on this page. Also, your stated reason for the edit I reverted, "removed clumsy prose" stuck me as less compelling than Adrian's reasoning. I thought you were being "silly", albeit intentionally :) . Luitgard (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If the truth be told, you've increased readership of the article and attracted other, more experienced, editors who do good work and reviews, which is more than I'd been able do, so thanks for that. Luitgard (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the quality of this article has improved (whether it ought to exist or not, is still an open question if you ask me), and that the list of spammers article -- whether it should exist in that form or not (i'm not sure) is at least more informative, balanced, and adheres more closely to the spirit of wikipedia than it did before, so yeah ... net-win all around. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The word "controversial" has been added to the lead sentence as it seems to reflect consensus. Thanks to all! Adrian, still awaiting your input. :) Luitgard (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article has an edge to it that is overwhelmingly negative. There are many unsourced claims in the lead that make him look to be some sort of villain. The content also seems to be more about Tagged than Greg as an individual.

Also, I wonder if Greg really notable enough on his own to even have an article? NCSS (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The claims in the lead are sourced in the body of the article. The negatives and positives are all abundantly documented and this is one of the most thoroughly debated and reviewed bios in the Wikipedia for someone of moderate significance. One of the reasons such an article is needed is that the noteworthy elements of Tseng's career did not start with Tagged and will likely not end with Tagged. Please feel free to cite any claims that you feel are "unsourced" and I'm sure one or more of us who are familiar with the article will be willing to show you the documentation you desire. As for Tseng not being notable enough to warrant his own article, the number of references to him in well known publications and the controversy he seems to have created make him noteworthy. 800 views of this article in the last 30 days seems to show a real interest in him as an individual. Please advise as to the further nature of your concerns and I'm sure one of us interested parties will be willing to discuss the matter with you and help you understand how the article reached its current form. In the interim, you might want to read the prior discussions on this article. Best regards, 99.99.223.132 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As an afterthought, it did occur to me that it is possible that someone who wondered why Mr. Tseng was labeled as a "controversial American Internet entrepreneur" might not have read the Controversy section of the article, which is the longest and most widely and copiously referenced of all the sections. Again, if that is not the case, please do share the nature of your puzzlement with us. Warm regards, 99.99.223.132 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello NCSS, have you read the discussion above? Here's a excerpt on the question of notability, "Tseng has touched the lives of tens of millions of people, some, like the happy members of tagged.com, in a positive way, others, the tens of millions who have received deceptive and misleading unsolicited commercial email (hereafter called spam for sake of brevity) from Tagged, Jumpstart, Crushlink, and hi5, in a negative way. He is likely one of the top five people in social network creation and administration and also probably, thru his corporations, one of the top five names associated with contemporary spam. Tagged.com is only one of the four organizations Tseng was involved with that engaged in very controversial e-mailing practices, and one of only two of the companies that he was founder and CEO of that paid multiple large or record settlements for misleading e-mail practices. How could all of this be covered in the article on tagged.com? Then look at the astounding amount of participation, comment and controversy this article has generated from people who claim to be in no way related to Tseng, tagged.com, any of his other companies or competing companies." At this point it is possible that 10,000 people have read this article, let us know if you need help getting the latest readership figures. Anyway ~10,000 readers seems to show considerable interest. All of the comments on deceptive bulk email are documented in the controversy section. What is it that you feel is unfair in this article? 192.84.63.228 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Six months have passed since NCSS expressed concerns and they seem to have been abundantly addressed by two others over 5 months ago. There have been no further comments since then, so I'm removing the tags disputing the neutrality of this article. If someone wishes to reinstate them, I hope they respond to the comments left by 99.99.223.132 and 192.84.63.228 above. Luitgard (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tseng was a speaker in a conference 5 or 6 months ago, and likely the documented information in the article would make for embarrassing questions, so coincidentally, someone shows up here and makes complaints about how Mr. Tseng's interesting history does not warrant his own article. Of course, they were acting in good faith, as we must assume that of all Wikipedia editors, right? Surely none of the people who want to edit or remove this fairly popular and informative article on Mr. Tseng are in any way related to him. And none of them are motivated by the fact that Tseng's best interests would be served if the truth about his past and behaviour were harder to find, and he could keep claiming that every time he did something it was just a glitch and one time error?. ;) 192.84.63.228 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 192.84.63.228 for stating the obvious. We've had a parade of people who seem strangely intent on arguing that this article that's been viewed ~ 12,000-15,000 times serves no constructive purpose. They never seem willing to address the fact that Tseng has a pattern of behavior that is independent of where he worked and predates his running Tagged by many years. If you don't know his history, you might believe him when he says that deceptive e-mails where sent out by accident. But if you know that such mailings have occurred at EVERY company he's managed for the past ten years or so, and that it caused anger and controversy each time, and large fines to be levied on two different companies that he ran, one has to be very suspicious of the motives of those who say he doesn't merit an article in his own right. Luitgard (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

NCCS, If your point is "No source has been provided for claim of Greg being 'controversial'", we can ask the opinion of senior editors as to whether a descriptive that has been agreed by consensus to be an acurate description of an individual may be used in the intro. If you feel that Tseng is not controversial, please explain why. Regards, Luitgard (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

I do not understand what is wrong with my changes to the introduction? Why was it reverted? Synergee (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph states that the opening paragraph of biographies on Wikipedia should explain why the person is notable or significant. Tseng doesn't merit a Wikipedia article because he runs in his spare time, nor because he's a former researcher. He merits a Wikipedia article because he's a businessmen, the current CEO of Tagged and former CEO of Jumpstart. Both these companies are most wiki-notable for their spamming. You can confirm all this yourself by entering "Greg Tseng" in a Google News Archives search. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Synergee, the prior description of Tseng as controversial represented a carefully negotiated consensus that was extensively debated. Did you read the discussion on that topic before you removed the term? Luitgard (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Update. It appears Tseng is speaking at a public event in 4 days, on June the 6th. http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/31/the-next-wave-of-social-at-glimpse-the-social-discovery-conference/ It seems that someone often shows up to make edits that portray Tseng in a more favorable light just before he makes a public appearance. Notice that the readership of the article spiked on the 29th of last month, the day the favorable edits where made. Maybe the article should be locked from editing for two weeks before Tseng makes public appearances as any edits made before such appearances would likely be biased? Luitgard (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that pattern immplies that anything dodgy is going on. It could just be that the advertising of Tseng's public appearances draws new people to this article, and that some of those understand that Wikipedia should be neutral but don't understand the problem of false balance, and so edit the article to portray Tseng more favorably. The spike on the 29th could also be a consequence, and not a cause, of the edit, as the editor, recent changes patrollers, watchlisters and so on view the article, sometimes repeatedly. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Consider that we make minor changes and updates from time to time and it doesn't attract a readership spike, so I think the spike was due to some sort of announcement. Also, Tseng has an interesting history of manipulation. But granted, we are to assume good will on the part of other Wikipedia editors. Luitgard (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Luitgard, I saw your comment on my page, thanks for reaching out. Could you please elaborate on Tseng's "interesting history of manipulation"? That piqued my interest. Do you know him in real life? NCSS (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, no, I haven't had the privilege of meeting him in real life, so I can only guess what he's like in that context. But he touched my life and that of millions of others. The first time for me was with his misleading CrushLink Website that sent me email saying someone had a "crush" on me. To find out who, I had to supply multiple email addresses, 25 I think, of people who I thought it might be. I was suspicious so I tired using fake email addresses, but the site pinged them to be sure they responded. So I then used email addresses from an open domain that I had access to that would forward any address I created back to me. It turned out any address I supplied would be sent the same email I received. It was a scam to harvest email addresses and I of course in no way had a crush on any of the fictitious addresses I'd created and I would have been quite embarrassed if I'd given the addresses of real people. The next time I heard from one of Tseng's companies was in 2008 I think, but I can't be sure. But I did get email because of the Tagged scam in two separate batches, months apart as I recall. I then recognized Tseng's name and saw him giving interviews wherein he claimed it was all a one time mistake. That's hard to believe if you know his history, so I wrote this article so he could never believably make such claims again. Given the steady stream of people like yourself who claim he doesn't merit his own article, I suspect it has served its intended purpose a little too well for Mr. Tseng's liking. If someone in the tech press needs to write an accurate article on him just for the sake of quoting it in this Wikipedia article, I bet someone would love to do so and that might be one way to settle this endless edit warring, but let's try other options first. Luitgard (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. For a bit more perspective on why someone might say Tseng has an "interesting history of manipulation", check this out. It's classic Tseng spin, which can be paraphrased, "It was all a one time mistake and was most certainly not intentional." But no one who knows his history could believe that. Something tells me some articles on Tseng in the popular press that pay a lot more attention to his past are in order and might be coming out soon. I'm sure we'll all be pleased by that, as all of us are committed to the truth coming out, right? Luitgard (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Content removal and reference link

I took out a chunk of stuff that was not about Tseng, it was just company stuff. I recently read the Tagged page and saw pretty much the same info too, So if people want to read more they can, I made a direct link to the controversy on Tagged. Is tha the proper way? Synergee (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll review what was removed later, outside of the reference in the intro to Tseng as being controversial, which I have already restored. The description of Tseng as being controversial has been extensively debated and represents consensus on the matter. Please discuss it with us before you unilaterally remove it again. Also, it seems you always show up to make edits to the article that make it more flattering to Tseng just before there are readership spikes. Are we to assume that this is entirely coincidental? Luitgard (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, Synergee. Thanks for your help. Luitgard, please don't bite the newcomers. The more editors that want to help, the better IMHO NCSS (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Some newcomers have a different approach than others. Some say that an article that's been read 20,000 times shouldn't exist. As such, one might question whether they really are committed to spreading the truth. More editors with a bias or agenda are not necessarily better than fewer who want a less biased article. But in the past, we have worked together and made a good article and I hope we can do so in the future. If there needs to be a piece in a credible source in the popular press on Tseng himself to make certain people comfortable with this article, I think someone will likely write one, and then we'll all be happier. But since we shouldn't ask for too much from life, let's see if we can agree on acceptable wording without waiting for an exposé on Tseng. Luitgard (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greg Tseng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415034142/http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/226600-tagged.com-gets-slapped-by-san-francisco-da to http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/226600-tagged.com-gets-slapped-by-san-francisco-da

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)