Jump to content

Talk:Matrix scheme/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Non-sustainable

Matrix scheme just jumped up on my watchlist again, reminding me it exists. Calling it a "buisness model" in the introduction makes my teeth itch. Would returning the phrase "non-sustainable" back to the intro cause an edit war again? I mean... it really isn't sustainable! Fieari 20:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow I forgot about this, too. Well, that would probably cause an edit war again unless you find a reputable source that specifically says they are unsustainable, otherwise we might have problems with WP:NOR and such and then we're back into a torrent of edit warring :). Cowman109Talk 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
As the term 'non-sustainable' is already mentioned in the very first paragraph of the article, I see no reason to state it again. I would have to agree that the business-model has all but died out, but none-the-less, it did have a structure to its operation and did follow a business model. As such, I feel that the article is fine as it is.

As it stands, I also had more-or-less forgotten about the article until it came to the top of the watchlist. Personally I disagree with the minor changes - CDs is a shortened version and should have the periods in it as should UK (U.K.)but frankly I just can't be bothered to revert!

Cybertrax 23:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted the link to http://www.cyberama.net/wikipedia/. The home page for http://www.cyberama.net redirects to http://www.hackersunited.co.uk/. That page promises to share the secrets of such things as European Credit Card Fraud, Potassium Bombs, Your Legal Rights, Down The Road Missle, Fun With Shotgun Shells, Drip Timer, Shaving Cream Bomb, Lockpicking the EASY way, Anarchy 'N' Explosives all for the low price of $25.99. --A. B. 06:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


It would be nice to talk things over on this page BEFORE altering a moderated agreed article! The link you refer to is www.cyberama.info. This leads to a one-page website which has information regarding matrix sites - and has been set up to do precisely this and nothing else. The only way further information is obtainable is by altering the web address in the address bar in order to access a different website - this would then be a different web address to the link provided, and as such is irrelevant. In future, if you have a problem with any part of the article I would ask that you discuss on this section before you change the article. This is in order to make sure that the article as it currently stands is not vandalized. We have had major problems in the past which led myself to get administrators and moderators involved.

--Cybertrax 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cybertrax, Your when you originally set up that link it did not originate from such a questionable source. I must concur that under the current use of your primary website of cybermania.net, this link is not appropriate. Many of the items on that page are of questionable legality. Arzel 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


As I have stated above, the link in question is www.cyberama.info. This link goes to a one-page website, with no links to any other website. As such, it is self-contained and is an appropriate link. Any other websites you have discussed are only visible if someone alters the link to either remove or add text to the address bar (where the link text shows). This means that as you are yourself altering the link address, you are therefore moving away from the link using your own amendments, and therefore has nothing to do with the actual link provided.

I can understand both of your queries regarding the material you have remarked upon; however as none of this is viewable from the link itself nor is it interlinked from the article, I fail to see how it has relevance. I also fail to see what the merits are in questioning the link - the link itself falls within Wikipedia rules.

--Cybertrax 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I help out with WikiProject Spam and came here after looking at a known spammer's contributions; this article was on one of his many previously spammed pages and I was checking to see if it had been reverted (it had). Since this page has attracted spam before, I checked out the other links. Sometimes editors link to an "innocent" landing page which is then linked to much more commercial pages, so I checked out the cyberama home page, noted my concerns on the talk page and deleted the link. I didn't think the other link met Wikipedia:External links, the linking guideline, but it didn't look like some sort of spamdexing scheme, so I left it alone. I should add that I did not call the cyberama page "spam", just an "inappropriate link" (for me, the distinction is important and I've learned to use the word "spam" carefully).
I've followed the exchange here since then, rechecked the linked cyberama page (including the source code -- sometimes spamdexers hide links where search engines see them, but page visitors don't).
Cybertrax is right -- http://www.cyberama.net/wikipedia/ appears to be an isolated page, not linked to the rest of that site. There's nothing tricky going on that I can see.
I've taken the liberty of retitling the orginal name I gave this section[1]. The original header and my original comments were statements of fact, but I think at this point that they probably distract from what I now think the regular editors of this page might consider, namely taking another look at both external links. I suggest putting aside the hackersunited.co.uk topic. Neither link goes to what folks would consider to be a bad faith web page. As I understand it, the editors here have tried to link to two sides of a debate out of fairness.
Just the same, I don't think either link meets the linking guideline. They may be good sites, but they just don't meet the guideline as I see it. Most sites don't.
See the "Links normally to be avoided" section of the guideline:
"10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET."
It's not that these sites are bad or that they're not useful -- it's that there's no real quality control over the content, even if they're closely moderated.
"11. Links to personal websites, including blogs and anonymous websites or webpages, except those allowed by policy (see WP:V)"
If you then go to WP:V (the Verifiability policy), it has a section entitled "Self-published sources (online and paper)" that basically says that unless Cybertrax is a widely published (by "reliable sources" as narrowly defined by Wikipedia) and "notable" authority, his work should not be quoted.
Finally, the "Important points to remember" at the very front of the article makes a key point:
"1.Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."
So I suggest that you delete both links, not because they're to "bad" places on the web, but because they don't meet the very specific linking guideline and verifiability policy that have been hammered out by the Wikipedia community's consensus.
Finally, to put Cybertrax' pages in perspective, a blog I published was widely cited within my industry's trade media and I've been called on to speak internationally -- and I sure wouldn't link to my site either.
That's my two cents' worth. I leave it to the regulars here to hash this one out -- this is about good faith editing choices, not spam as I see it. --A. B. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
One final comment -- my recruiting pitch: WikiProject Spam could always use more volunteers, given the daily spam assault. Check out the talk page and think about pitching in. --A. B. (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Many thanks for explaining in greater detail what your reasoning was - I feel happier knowing. I agree with most of what you have said, as it was discussed in great detail when we had mediators involved earlier this year with the article rewrite. Originally the two external links were actually used as reference links within the article itself, but it was decided due to the non-verifibility of either of them that it would be best if they were relegated to the external links section. I set up the cyberama.info link myself after it had been agreed that it would be acceptable to use as a link to counter the matrixwatch.org link. However, I also see what you mean about neither of the links being particularly suited for the policies of Wikipedia.

I am agreeable to having both external links removed. Arzel, as the main representative of matrixwatch.org, I think it may be best for you to agree/not agree before any action is actually taken. I guess that quite alot of leeway was provided by the mediators when we were discussing the article earlier, and perhaps now is the time to mutually agree more changes.

--Cybertrax 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The primary point of the Matrixwatch link(s) are/have been to provide information regarding matrix sites, and how the matrix scheme works. The work at MatrixWatch has been cited in some of the news articles used in the definition. Unfortunately there is not much additional information on the web regarding these types of schemes, and MatrixWatch has become the primary source of information regarding them, therefore I see no reason to remove them as an external source. Previously, links have been included to specific parts of MatrixWatch in describing exactly what a matrix is in more detail, however these were removed as a compromise with Cybertrax. It should be noted that MatrixWatch is not a personal site, nor the opinion of one person, it is a collection of facts from several people accross the world, and understanding of laws in several countries put forth to provide an accurate description of what a matrix scheme is and how they work. Cybertrax's opinion, is the view of one person, and the two should not be compared as such. It would serve no purpose to remove the only credible link regarding the Matrix Scheme from this entry.

Arzel 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Actually Arzel, what you said is not strictly true, is it?

Yes, there were reference links to www.matrixwatch.org from within the old article, just as there were also originally reference links from within the article to one of my organisation's sites at www.matrixwatch.net (later on changed to www.cyberama.info). However, it was pointed out by the mediator a few months ago that neither site was suitable for a reference link, and the mediator at that time agreed that instead we could both have our sites listed as external links.

I would like to ppoint out that John (jokach, the owner of matrixwatch.org) has previously stated that matrixwatch is HIS own personal website and he will do whatever he wants with it! This is at odds with your claims that it is a communal organisation. These comments were made to me on this Talk page several months ago in response to my request for aa mailing address so I could issue a legal summons to matrixwatch.org - he said that was not applicable as it was a personal website owned by himself (this can be verified by checking the archives of this page). My linked webpage at www.cyberama.info is operated through a limited company and therefore is not technically a personal website. As such, in theory I have more of a right to an external link than www.matrixwatch.org!

However, I am wishing to keep within the Wikipedia rules here. I am happy for my link to be removed if others feel that neither of our sites are suitable - I would have to agree that technically that would be the corrcet thing to do. However, this would only be acceptable if ALL links were treated equally, meaning that if my link were removed, so should the others.

As Arzel and I have had MANY debates over the years (!!) I do not think it is likely we would agree - on anything. My feelings are clear, and I guess so are Arzel's. I guess the next step is up to A. B. User talk:A. B..

--Cybertrax 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cybertrax, MatrixWatch is a communal organization, please leave your baseless vendeta against MatrixWatch out of this discussion. Arzel 05:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Well as one of Bill Cosby's child characters once said to another, "you're not the Jello sheriff!" And I'm not the link sheriff. I came to this article due to spam concerns. I'm satisfied this stuff is not drive-by spamming, so I'm going to leave it to you all. I'm only a volunteer with Wikiproject Spam. I have no admin authority, just the same editing privileges as your 8-year old using an anonymous IP address at school.
My opinion: I think you should ditch the links as guideline violations. I think you should also know that you don't need the matrixwatch.org link person's approval to delete it since it does not meet the guideline. He owns the site, but not the link -- see WP:OWN.
I looked at the site -- it's got useful stuff, it just doesn't meet Wikipedia's rules. Ultimately, the guideline flows from the three key editing policies: no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. A forum is a great meeting place of different points of view, but the posts there don't meet those 3 policies.
You might look at linking to a dmoz.org page such as this one (matrixwatch.org is listed):
The external links guideline encourages dmoz-linking:
  • "2. Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{Directory request}} on the article's talk page."
I hope this helps. I'm confident the majority of you can sort this out, then make it happen. If you have the rules on your side, you can pretty much do what you want and make it stick. --A. B. (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is really no point in rehashing this discussion as it will lead nowhere. It really comes down to what is percieved as NPOV and semantics regarding the use of the word Matrix. Arzel 05:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Do whatever you feel is best. I have other pressing more important things to worry about, like the fact there is a serial killer attacking women in my town. Sometimes, it hits you that there are more important things in life than small petty things like the definition of a word.

--Cybertrax 11:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this being rehashed again? I thought everybody had settled on something amicable to both parties. No need to go rocking the boat.

Personally, I don't see why Cybertrax cares as he apparently doesn't own a matrix site anymore. And I don't really see why Arzel and co. care since a simple perusal of their site indicates they don't even bother with matrix sites anymore. They're all about some YMMSS thing which, best I can tell, has something to do with "buying" credits to something with the intent of re-selling them at a later date. In other words, nothing to do with a matrix site.--Samoyed 4:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, the Matrix world is mostly dead, however we do still run into occasional traditional (see obvious) matrix schemes. YMMSS was originally a matrix with the primary difference being that people bought advertising to be entered into the matrix. It was also a classic example of how a matrix is really nothing more than a ponzi scheme, you could replace "advertising" with "e-book" or "phone booster" or anything, and then get back "more advertising" or "money" or "plasma TV" to see just how the underlying scheme is the same, only the nouns describing the scheme are different. So while it may seem that we no longer care about Matrix Schemes, the real answer is that Matrix Schemes encompass a large range of schemes which may not always be apparent to those not aquainted with this type of scheme. Arzel 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I no longer have a matrix site (sold it to a guy in Denmark) I still have opinions regarding this type of business. I disagree with many of Arzel's opinions, but then - life would be extremely dull if we all agreed on everything! At the end of the day, as long as we respect each others right to a different viewpoint, then I feel we can all co-exist happily. The one thing I do agree on is that YMMSS/STA is the main topic so far of matrixwatch.org, and I do wonder what will be discussed there when it crashes - as it surely will do soon, being a scam.

Happy New Year to one and all!

--Cybertrax 15:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

External links, again

Cybertrax, it was agreed above that the link wasn't outright spam: nothing was said about quality or other fitness thereof. Make THAt case here. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Will you guys just give it a rest?!!

This topic is almost over anyhow, considering that the typical matrix scheme is all but finished. I sold my matrix site to a gentleman in Denmark and therefore have no personal financial interest in this topic. Jokach and Arzel, however, have lots of personal interest due to their being admin and moderators for matrixwatch.org, a site dedicated against matrix schemes.

The question of links has been raised several times. Mediators and other people connected with Wikipedia have come and gone, all expressing concerns over the links. However, the question of 'quality' has never arisen, probably because this issue comes down to each persons own opinion - this has nothing to do with fact-based evidence. The problem that mediators have had with the external links is that both my own link at cyberama.info and Jokach/Arzel's link at matrixwatch.org fail the Verifibility test. Their advice was to delete BOTH links. I said that I was agreeable to this as long as BOTH links were deleted, but Arzel refused to agree to this, stating that matrixwatch.org was not a personal site, but a community. Unfortunately for him, he is wrong! A quote from an email I received from John (Jokach), the owner of matrixwatch.org, says "We are not an organization as you state, the site is individually owned, what I say goes." As they say, out of the horses mouth!

As BOTH links fail the Verifability test, I suggest that they BOTH get deleted. I shall restore my link for now, and if no other comments are received in the next few days I shall proceed to delete both links as per advice from mediators.


--Cybertrax | Talk 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cybertrax, that logic is silly. MW is a community. Ultimately one person does end up being the owner, but to be more accurately correct Jokach is the current president, so to speak. That role could have fallen to a number of people. That response to you was most likely related to some specific comment you made, probably in regards to your baseless lawsuit that you have been threatening. The real question is why don't you give up? By your own admission you are no longer involved in Matrix scams. The only reason you still care is because of your personal vendetta against MW. MW is linked through many sites related to Matrix scams and the like, and in no way is comparable to your page which serves only to function as a soapbox basically disagreeing with the wiki entry. Arzel 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the cyberama link because it is just someone's personal webpage, which clearly violates Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. It is a low quality link, not any sort of reliable source, and doesn't belong in this or any other wikipedia article. If the other link needs to be deleted as well, that is a separate issue. There is no "if one link stays, then the other must" rule. --Xyzzyplugh 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


I would like to quote what was mentioned previously,

See the "Links normally to be avoided" section of the guideline: "10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." It's not that these sites are bad or that they're not useful -- it's that there's no real quality control over the content, even if they're closely moderated. "11. Links to personal websites, including blogs and anonymous websites or webpages, except those allowed by policy (see WP:V)" If you then go to WP:V (the Verifiability policy), it has a section entitled "Self-published sources (online and paper)" that basically says that unless Cybertrax is a widely published (by "reliable sources" as narrowly defined by Wikipedia) and "notable" authority, his work should not be quoted. Finally, the "Important points to remember" at the very front of the article makes a key point: "1.Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." So I suggest that you delete both links, not because they're to "bad" places on the web, but because they don't meet the very specific linking guideline and verifiability policy that have been hammered out by the Wikipedia community's consensus.


It is evidenced that both external links go to personal sites. John (Jokach) has already admitted that his site at matrixwatch.org is his own personal site, not an organizational website. And I freely agree that although my own site at cyberama.info is one of 16 websites owned by MatrixWatch Limited - a legal entity all on its own - it can be construed that it is a personal site, it contains my own thoughts and opinions based on the law but that has not been verified by other parties.

As such, and advised by several others based on the Wikipedia terms and conditions, I shall agree that both external links are unsuitable for this article. This is based mainly on the Wikipedia rules taht we all have to follow - no exceptions. In this respect, I shall now delete all external links. If the links are placed back, I shall follow Wikipedia rules, and delete them again. Anybody who continues to alter this will be reported to Wikipedia admin for breach of rules. In this case, I would ask that the article be locked to stop any further vandalism attacks. I say this, as I believe that others may feel strongly at the links being deleted.

Please be aware of the Wikipedia rules that we must all follow, and remember - this is only an article on the internet, not life or death!


--Cybertrax | Talk 17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

When I looked at the matrix watch forums some time in the past, and having looked at them again, they seem to be being used by con artists to advertise their scams. Therefore, I am quite fine with the removal of this link. I was mistaken about this. --Xyzzyplugh 17:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
What?? I think you need to re-evaluate MW. There is no advertisement of any type of scam. Any and all advertisement that appears on the forums is quickly deleted and the user banned. Please base your argument upon some verification of this statement. Arzel 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
See the following link: http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=63 There are a number of threads, in fact most of the threads that I checked, where everyone posting is a con artist running some sort of scam. Obviously this forum is not being moderated, or is being moderated by someone who is in on the scams. I was mistaken about this, see conversation later in this page--Xyzzyplugh 04:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Arzel, give it a rest. We have had, in the past 12 months, Wikipedia admin, Wikipedia mediators and a memeber of the Wikipedia SPAM team all say the same thing - the external links BOTH failed the Verifibility test. This means that they are BOTH unsuitable for use as external links. I have reluctantly had to agree with this regarding my own site, as although I firmly believe in what is stated on my site, the arguement has not been been published by a third party. External links can ONLY be 3rd-party, and not be directly linked to us. Matrixwatch.org IS direvctly linked to you and Jokach, as you are moderator and owner respectively of the website. Therefore, it fails the issue of Verifibility.

In order to keep within Wikipedia rules, both links - cyberama.info and matrixwatch.org - should go. If you are adamant that they should stay, please provide valid reasons why they PASS the Verifibility issue.

--Cybertrax | Talk 19:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From the section of Links to avoid.

Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

MW is the only known source of detailed information on the workings of a matrix scam, and has over 3 years of information regarding such scams.

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.

Information on MW contains only factually known information. Although Matrix promoters disagree on this matter, MW deals mostly with the mathmatical basis of these types of scams which has yet to be proven incorrect.

3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

MW is by itself highly ranked and gains little if anything from the wiki link.

4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

MW contains no selling any product or service.

5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

MW contains no advertisement.

6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.

MW does not require payment or registration to view any content which would not be viewable without registraion.

7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.

MW is available on all browsers (that I am aware of).

8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.

MW does not require any external applications, maybe for .pdf files, but I think that you can view these under all circumstances.

9. Links to search engine results pages.

MW does no link to search engine result pages.

10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

MW does have a forum, but the primary information regarding the matrix scheme is not part of the forum. There is a great deal of information outside the actual forum. Initially just this content was linked, but because of Cybertrax it was reduced to just the main link to MW.

11. Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority.

MW may be viewed by some as a personal webpage, however it has been recognized as an authority on Matrix scams through many other websites.

12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

MW is not a wiki.

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.

MW is directly related to the article at hand.

Now please tell me how you can disregard MW compared to the hundreds (if not thousands) of other external websites which violate to some certain degree one or more of the previously listed points.

Cybertrax, your website in no way is comparable to the MW community. Arzel 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Arzel, your comments border between fanaticism and downright lies... perhaps you are simply mistaken. one should avoid:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

MW is one of many sites that discuss matrix schemes. MatrixWatch.org is not unique, and therefore fails on this point.
FALSE! MW contains valuable tools unavailabe anywhere else on the internet, such as the matrix calculator. Arzel 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.

Information on MW contains information that is not 100% factually accurate. I have personally in the past proven many of the 'facts' on matrixwatch.org to be false - this is just one of several reasons why I was banned. More importantly, the main content on matrixwatch.org is of peoples opinions. As such, the main content of matrixwatch.org is unverifiable. The link thus fails on this point.
This is your own personal BIASED opinion.Arzel 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

MW is by itself highly ranked and gains little if anything from the wiki link - true. In that case, why is it SO important to be linked from this article?!
So is this an arguement against? What is your point? Arzel 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

MW contains no selling any product or service - true.

5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

MW contains several advertisments, and has done for over a year. Therefore matrixwatch.org fails on this point.
This is a blatent lie. MW contains no advertisement and has not for some time. There was a short period of time where we tested google ad-sense to help pay for hosting services. However, because of the nature of MW many ads keyed into obvious scams and we discontinued after approximately 2 or 3 weeks. There was one non-paid link for Sirius Radio. Jokach added the link because he likes Sirius, however that link has not been on the site for some time. Arzel 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.

MW does not require payment or registration to view any content which would not be viewable without registration - true.

7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.

MW is available on all browsers (that I am aware of) - true.

8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.

MW does not require any external applications, maybe for .pdf files, but I think that you can view these under all circumstances - true.

9. Links to search engine results pages.

MW does not link to search engine result pages - true.

10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

MatrixWatch.org fails on this point in a BIG way, due to being a discussion forum! It is therefore unable to be used as a link, based on this point alone.
As I stated, there are forums, but the primary purpose of MW has always been the compilation of information regarding matrix scams and other similar scams as well as other articles and tools (like the matrix calculator.) By your definition and website with a forum is automatically discredited. If MW was only a forum then I would agree, but that is not the case. Arzel 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

11. Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority.

MatrixWatch.org has been declared to be a personal website in an email from the owner, John (Jokach). It states on the website itself that it is a community/organisation, but fails to keep within the law by having pertinent contact information available. When pressed on this issue, the owner stated it was his personal website - as such matrixwatch.org fails on this point.
MW is identified as a resource for matrix sites from other non-related entities, thus it passes. Even so this is not treated as a personal webpage or blog. Arzel 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

MW is not a wiki - true.

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.

MW is directly related to the article at hand - true.


By my reckoning matrixwatch.org has failed on 5 of the 12 points above. As failure on just ONE point is reasons for not using the link, I believe that it is evident that matrixwatch.org is not a valid external link.

Perhaps a different external link could be found and discussed instead??


--Cybertrax | Talk 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cybertrax, what is your problem? You have had this personal vendetta against MW for the past 2 years, and have done everything you can to either thwart the noble cause of MW, or confuse people as to the nature of MW. You have websites with your own twisted bomb-making links under a simmilar MW banner. You had registered a MW website to further confuse people, and then after letting that one lapse registered a new MW website. I don't mean for this to wander off into personal attack area, but I think it is important for others reading this to understand why you continue to press the issue.

Some of the prominent reasons for MW to be listed as an External link.

YMMSS (One of the largest Matrix scams we have encountered) http://www.mmfhoh.org/index.php?title=star_telegram_features_matrixwatch_org&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 http://www.auction-scams.info/page4.html

EZEXPO Case http://www.lawyers.com/lakeshorelaw/recentcases.jsp

IPOD Matrix http://clansharrock.blogspot.com/2005/10/ipod-misery.html

Published Article using MW as a reference source. http://csdl2.computer.org/persagen/DLAbsToc.jsp?resourcePath=/dl/proceedings/&toc=comp/proceedings/hicss/2007/2755/00/2755toc.xml&DOI=10.1109/HICSS.2007.120

One of a few Rip-Off-Report links http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff124031.htm

Fort Worth Star telegram relating to the YMMSS Matrix Scam http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_km4467/is_200605/ai_n16426336

Other scam sites using us as a reference for the closed matrix list http://www.mlmwatchdog.com/mlm_matrixes_suck.html

Open Directory list of sites dealing with Ponzi's and Pryamid schemes. http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Fraud/Investment/Ponzi_or_Pyramid_Schemes/

Criminal Advice http://www.criminaladvice.net/aboutcococommerce.htm

G4 TV http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/features/44875/Are_Matrix_Sites_a_Fraud.html

Not to mention the at least dozens of forums that use MW as a reference for Matrix and similar type scams.

If you can find a better external website with more independent information regarding the Matrix scam I would love to hear about it.

Arzel 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Arzel, you are IGNORING the main point here, one that several others have also made. Both cyberama.info AND matrixwatch.org fail on several factors regarding the rules on external links. As such, neither should be used. As you are well aware, I only created my site there in the first place to counter the non-neutral points of view that was in the article to start with - which has now been fixed mainly due to my request for mediation last year.

Advertising and conflicts of interest Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines.


Links normally to be avoided Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. Links mainly intended to promote a website. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. Links to search engine results pages. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.


As you can see, matrixwatch.org is not suitable for use as an external link, according to the official Wikipedia rules. Please abide by these rules for the sake of the whole Wiki community, thank you.

--Cybertrax | Talk 11:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You have provided no reason why MW is unsuitable. I read all of those reasons, and MW is questionable on one. Basically it is your belief that MW is a personal webpage. YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA. Furthermore you have violated the 3-revert rule for an article. Arzel 14:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that MW is not a personal website. It has received external media coverage, has a monthly budget in the hundreds of dollars range, is involved with several legal cases related to the case. They are definitely an organization, run by multiple people, for a specific purpose related to the subject of this page. Their standards of inclusion seem very high, and they have a well moderated and active forum. The alexa rank is 230k, which is only a mark against it receiving an article of its own (although the external media coverage would counter that), but it definitely looks worthy of inclusion here. Fieari 18:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Arzel, I am afraid that you have finally shown your lack of knowledge, apologies for forcing you to do this. First of all, lets deal with this '3-revert rule'. This rule actually only states that a maximum of 3 reverts are to be done to an article in any one day. Point A is that when you stated it was the third revert, it was actually just after middnight UTC and therefore a new day had dawned - revert counter reset back to zero. Point B is that as YOU were the one reverting MY corrections, it would be YOU that were guilty of any possible offence. Perhaps you would like to review Wikipedia rules??!

Secondly, you have stated that you believe matrixwatch.org is only questionable on one of the above external link rules. Even if there is only one breach, this is reason for a link NOT to be included. However, as I stated earlier, I see that matrixwatch.org is in breach of FIVE rules. They are:


1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

MW is one of many sites that discuss matrix schemes. MatrixWatch.org is not unique, and therefore fails on this point.
List some other sites that are as comprehensive as MW. Arzel 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.

Information on MW contains information that is not 100% factually accurate. I have personally in the past proven many of the 'facts' on matrixwatch.org to be false - this is just one of several reasons why I was banned. More importantly, the main content on matrixwatch.org is of peoples opinions. As such, the main content of matrixwatch.org is unverifiable. The link thus fails on this point.
Your opinions are biased because you have a personal financial interest in running a Matrix scam. The Matrix information on MW for this purpose is mathmatical in nature. You already forced the removal of What a matrix is, and some of the other important links. Arzel 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

3) Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

MatrixWatch.org fails on this point in a BIG way, due to being a discussion forum! The whole site is operated by a CMS (Content Management System) system called vBulletin with an enhanced look through vPortal. vBulletin is a forum system, and as the whole of matrixwatch.org uses vBulletin, it therefore shows that the entire site is a forum.
As I have stated before, the primary purpose of MW is a compilation of historical information on Matrix sites and other scams. Arzel 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

4) Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority.

MatrixWatch.org has been declared to be a personal website in an email from the owner, John (Jokach). It states on the website itself that it is a community/organisation, but fails to keep within the law by having pertinent contact information available. When pressed on this issue, the owner stated it was his personal website - as such matrixwatch.org fails on this point. There are only two choices here - either matrixwatch IS a personal site, or it isn't. If it is then it fails this rule, if it isn't a personal site then not only has Jokach lied in writing, but the entire website is breaking the law by failing to have pertinent contact information such as a mailing address visible on the website. If the website breaks the law, it should definately not be used as an external link.
Would you get off this...please. MW is not treated as a personal website, other than to repell your baseless lawsuite. Arzel 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

From the advertising section:

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.
MW was not originally linked by any moderators from MW.

As stated before, above are 5 separate failures by matrixwatch.org as an external link. Matrixwatch.org should not be used as an external link because it fails to meet the criteria needed to be used. If there are issues with this, perhaps Arzel you would like to make an official complaint to Wikipedia admin, who make up these rules?!! In the meantime, I stand by the decision to delete BOTH links, as they both fail to meet the criteria.


--Cybertrax | Talk 19:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


ADDON:-


In order to prove the case about matrixwatch.org being a PERSONAL website, I quote an excerpt from an email sent to me from John Kachurick (Jokach), the site owner, "I have the right, as the site owner, to decide who stays and who does not. We are not an organization as you state, the site is individually owned, what I say goes." This was in response to an email from me asking for the contact details - I needed them for a lawsuit to be served. This statement from John, the "president" of matrixwatch.org, shows that he himself considers the website to be his own personal site. As it is personal, it fails to meet the criteria to be an external link on Wikipedia. (email available to anyone who requests it)


Regarding the comments of Fieri above....

"..has a monthly budget in the hundreds of dollars range, is involved with several legal cases related to the case." The budget means nothing - MY websites (all 150 of them!) all have yearly budgets of hundreds of dollars equivalent each, yet as I represent them, I am unable to use any of them as an external reference. I state yearly, as I think that is what you meant - the current yearly budget for matrixwatch.org for 2007 is $220 as shown on their frontpage. As for the legal cases, matrixwatch.org is not actually involved directly with ANY legal cases that I am aware of. The website recommends others to take legal action, referring them to an attorney, but this attorney does not actually represent matrixwatch.org. I know this for a fact as I emailed him, and an excerpt from his reply was, "..I do not represent "matrix watch." I do represent Timothy Schulz in lawsuits he has filed against illegal matrices. I am not authorized to accept legal process on behalf of him or matrix watch. If you want to serve legal papers on "matrix watch" you will have to do so by personal service on the owner of that website." This was in reply to my email asking him if he acted on behalf of matrixwatch.org in any legal matters (emails available on request).

My point stands - matrixwatch.org fails to qualify as an external link based on the rules created by the Wikipedia community.


--Cybertrax | Talk 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Arzel, you seem to be trying to evade the rules here - do you feel that matrixwatch.org should be above Wikipedia rules?!

Point 1, although matrixwatch.org is comprehensive, it is still NOT unique and therefore fails to qualify as an external link under this point.

The Matrix Calculator is unique to Matrix Watch. Matrix Watch contains the only comprehensive list of matrix sites which have existed or still exist. thus your arguement here fails. Arzel 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Point 2, rather than prove that matrixwatch.org contains verifiable material, you have gone on the offensive and attacked my character - just as you have done in the past on both Wikipedia and matrixwatch.org! And just to make things worse, you go and state inaccurate facts too!! You say that I have a personal financial interest in matrix schemes - not true. I do not operate a matrix scheme, and have not done for several months. I therefore have absolutely no financial interest in this whatsoever. I am just like you, an enthusiast in this subject. The majority of the content on matrixwatch.org is the forum which consists of forum members posts. These are comments made by them which often are "opinions" rather than factual statements. You have also been emotive in stating that I "forced" the removal of other links - what I actually did last year was get a mediator involved after many vandalistic attacks on this article, which seems to have upset you!

You have had in the past a personal financial interest in matrix schemes. You still publically state that you think they are a good way to get items for almost nothing. Based on your previous relationship to the Matrix scheme it is quite logical to assume that you still have a financial interest in a positive view, or in this case, as little negative view as possible. You continue to push the issue of your lawsuit against MW in your comments here, if anyone has been under attack it has been MW.

Point 3, you have failed to even rebut my comments! matrixwatch.org is primarily an internet discussion forum where members of the public can join free of charge and make any comments as they wish. As such, it cannot be used as an external link - please check the Wikipedia rules - yet again.

You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes at MW There is a great deal of information which we do not publish which is not relevant for this discussion. Granted the public area does contain a lot of discussion, but it also contains a great deal of information regarding matrix schemes which you fail to recognize. Arzel 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Point 4, your comment here is rather laughable - "MW is not treated as a personal website, other than to repell your baseless lawsuite." I am afraid that legally your statement does not make sense - either matrixwatch.org is a personal site or not, it cannot be both at the same time! If it is a personal site (as stated by John the "president" of matrixwatch.org) then it cannot be used as an external link. If it is not personal but rather an organisation, then by law it must provide a contact address; failure to do so is illegal which means again that it cannot be used as an external link. Deliberately hiding the contact details in order to avoid a lawsuit (from myself) is in itself an illegal act.

Again you are bringing up the issue of your baseless lawsuit. Legaly, yes the site is owned by one person. However, from a pratical point, it is not treated as a private website. Arzel 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the advertising point about not linking to a site you yourself help maintain... as you are a moderator on this forum (by stating you are a moderator you are admitting it IS a forum!) you are therefore not allowed to place a link to the site yourself. Once it has been removed you are not allowed to replace the link, as you have a vested interest in the website.

This is a terrible line of logic. If we had any personal financial interest then you might have a valid line of thought, but we don't. Our mission is to protect people against internet scams. Furthermore MW did not initiate a link to its site from the article.


Failing ONE point in the external links policy would mean that the link is unsuitable. Matrixwatch.org fails several points, and so should DEFINATELY not be allowed as an external link. Any questions you have regarding these rules should be placed with Wikipedia administrators, as I am but a humble editor like everyone else and have no say on these matters. I simply uphold the rules.


--Cybertrax | Talk 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we get to the real issue here. You don't like MW. You have been trying to sue MW for some time. Regardless of the layout of MW or the ownership you would find some fault with MW. Your whole purpose is to hurt MW because you blame MW for the failings of your matrix sites. Specifically you wish to sue MW because you believe MW responsible for your loss of payment providers for your matrix scams in the past. You created a site called matrixwatch.com to confuse people. You have further created a new site called matrix-watch.com to continue this confusion. You list on all of your websites "Matrixwatch ltd" in order to again feed off of and confuse. All of this is quite interesting since you also claim them to be under cybertrax trading.
Finally, may I remind you that part of the original mediation was the removal of some of the specific links to matrix watch with a general external link left as compromise. YOU AGREED TO THIS. We did not delete your link from this article, yet you feel that if your link is gone then this one must as well. Arzel 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Arzel, when you are trying to attack someone, it might be a good idea to get your facts right! lol Yes, you are correct in thinking that I have some issues with matrixwatch.org - this relates to the slander and character assasination done to me by several of your moderators some time ago. However, that has no particular relevance to the subject of external links on the Wikipedia article - I am simply following the rules as they are laid out. You are blaming for these rules, which does not seem very fair to me!

The facts are this: I am the director of several limited companies based in England which are The Cybertrax Online Trading Company Limited, Greetland Manor Limited and MatrixWatch Limited. In total, as of tonight I own 150 domains through these 3 companies. MatrixWatch Limited is designed to hold the domains containing "riskier" material, and was the legal entity that ran a matrix site. Since the main site, turbo-matrix.com, was sold to a gentleman in Denmark in March 2006 and the other one at cyberama.net shut down in August 2006, I have no financial interest in any matrix site. I do not BLAME matrixwatch.org for ruining any matrix site of mine, as in actual fact it was through matrixwatch that I managed to find ways of running them WITHIN THE LAW. To this respect I owe a great deal of thanks to matrixwatch.org. You have incorrectly mentioned that I registered a domain, matrixwatch.com. In actual fact it was matrixwatch.NET. And after several discussions with John via email, I agreed to let John take control of the domain.


"Legaly, yes the site is owned by one person. However, from a pratical point, it is not treated as a private website." You have still failed to make a distinction between the two. If legally it is a private website then it is unsuitable for a link, as per rules. If it is a community website then the website needs to fall in with the law and make available a mailing address. If it is a community website and fails to fall within the law then by logic it is therefore breaking the law, and is therefore unsuitable as an external link.

You mention that there is a great deal of information held within matrixwatch.org that is not published for the benefit of the general public. In that case, how could it be of any benefit to readers of the Wikipedia article? Knowledge is usless if it is not accessable. The majority of the content available at matrixwatch.org is via an internet discussion forum - that much I am sure we can agree on. Therefore, matrixwatch.org is not suitable for use as an external link.

Please stop attacking my personal character, as you have done many times before both on this site and on matrixwatch.org. This is not about you, or me. This is about the rights of the Wikipedia rules. We all have to follow the rules, and so if you have a problem with this I suggest - as I have done many times before - that you contact Wikipedia Admin.

--Cybertrax | Talk 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

MatrixWatch Limited is designed to hold the domains containing "riskier" material

At least you admit using the MatrixWatch tag for questionable material. Thanks for proving my point that you wish to tarnish the image of MatrixWatch. I'm not sure how you can defend that. Arzel 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Arzel, why do you persist in this? The issue is quite clear, the matrixwatch.org external link fails the Verifibility rule, and as such I have enforced the rules by deleting it. Attacking either myself or my business does not do your viewpoint any good, it just shows how you conduct yourself and always have done - in a negative fashion. I suggest you either try to prove how matrixwatch.org DOES pass the Verifibility rules, or just give up.

As I am sure you are aware, matrixwatch.org does not have a trademark. I own and operate MatrixWatch Limited, a totally seperate legal entity to matrixwatch.org, and also based in a different country. There is no reason to try to make a case that one is attacking the other, as there is room in this big wide world for us all to exist. Please stop attacking me and my business, and concentrate on your own affairs.

I would also suggest that as you cannot come up with an adequate arguement to keep the link, that YOU desist from repeated revert vandalism. My actions are in keeping with the rules, and I do not appreciate your insistant reverts.

--Cybertrax | Talk 04:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Matrixwatch.org

Copied from above a quote by Xyzzyplugh.

See the following link: http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=63 There are a number of threads, in fact most of the threads that I checked, where everyone posting is a con artist running some sort of scam. Obviously this forum is not being moderated, or is being moderated by someone who is in on the scams. see below--Xyzzyplugh 04:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding what is happening in these threads. I will go through one short one. http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4809

The first post is by a scammer (Zpb Investment). This person goes on to list the particulars of the scam. You will notice two sections in red which have been edited to remove referral links to the scam as well as the actual site. The editer for this post is Webwatch, one of the moderators at MW.

The second post is a response from Webwatch calling out the scammer asking for an explanation of the scam.

The third post is the scammer trying to show some legitimacy of the scam (not very well).

The fourth post is Webwatch again pointing out the scam, making a note of not spamming our forums (duplicate posts made by this person were deleted). Out of view is the banning of this person from the site for spamming referral links.

A couple threads down is this http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4762 a Forex trading scam.

The first post is from the scammer, edited by Weirdid (another moderator) to remove the referral links, although he didn't specifically make a notation in the post.

The next two posts are also mods commenting on the scams.

We leave these posts in place so that when people do internet searches on the scam in question they get picked up by spiders and potential victims can get additional information on the scam.

I personally take exception to your statement that MW is a haven for scam artists. The link you provided includes some which I personally edited to remove referral scam links, and every thread in the link you provided has some moderation from one of the mods at MW. While you may find threads for scams, if you actually read the threads you will see that they are condemnation of the scam. The posts are keep for historical purposes such that we may keep track of the thousands of scams on the internet and be a reliable source of scam information. I think you owe MW an appology. Arzel 05:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This thread [2] contains long "advice" on HYIP investing which is clearly designed to lure people into falling for these scams.
No, you are not reading it correctly. The first post is a excerpt of some of the drivel that scammers use as verification of their scams or similar scams. Ferret posted it as a historical record. The second post is additional historical compilation of how web sites scam people. Unfortunately HYIP fall into a gray area. I believe, and I have stated it on MW that I think they are all scams, but they are not abvious scams like the matrix scheme. Arzel 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This thread [3] appears to be an advertisement for a scam, links are all intact, no one has deleted or posted anything in opposition to it.

Sisco50 ocassionally will post some of the scames he comes across. None of the links contained referral links, and we don't have a problem leaving the site link in the posts because they help direct potential victims to MW instead of the scam.

This thread [4]

What? This thread doesn't contain any links. You also have Concerned (mod) posting a note for people to stay away from these scams. Again, we don't throw away information because it is important that the remnents of these scams, and the scam site non-linked that I am guessin you are referring, are preserved.

and this one [5] have the links still intact.

This thread contained no referral links so they were left. There are comments by a few mods after the initial post commenting on the scam.

On the other hand, having looked over the list of threads further, it appears that the problem threads are mostly quite old ones. Perhaps the forums weren't originally moderated, but now are? --

Xyzzyplugh 14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand the context of MW and the information contained. If you didn't realize it was an anti-scam site you might come to the conclusion you have made. And we do get a few idiots a week posting their scam on the site. If the post contains referral links we delete the referral links, most of the people shilling scams are doing it for referral or downline building, so we never leave referral links because we don't want them to benefit at all. If we can we will leave the website primary link and as much of the scam post as possible. These sites DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THEIR SITE LINKED TO MW, and I cannot stress that further. In the future, if people do a search on the so named scam, MW will come up in the search list. When they come to MW if they ask any questions regarding the scams then they get the response that Yes that is a scam, and this is why. Those that you have listed didn't need any further comment because they are obviously scam. Seriously though, why would we promote scams and at the same time fight them?
I am still waiting for an appology. I am quite insulted that MW is on trial here for promoting scams, I personally have never invested in any internet scheme (since I know they are almost always scams), and have invested a substantial amount of my time and money informing the general public to the nature of these scams and that people should avoid them at all costs. And this doesn't include all of the time I have spent here trying to properly define the matrix scam for what it is. Arzel 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see in looking at this further that I was wrong about this. When I first looked at some of the HYIP websites, I found that there were websites running the scams, and then other ones which were supposed monitors which supposedly rated them, but these of course were part of the whole scam system, as they were leading people to believe that some of these HYIPs were honest and some weren't, which is of course not true. When I looked at your forums, I went right to the HYIP forum without looking at any of the others, clicked on a few of the links, the ones I mentioned above, and I got the impression that your site was something like the HYIP rating sites. This link [6] was especially the one that gave me this impression, as Ferret didn't explain why he was posting this, and I assumed he was posting his own writing - and the fact that he has 500 posts on the forum then gave me the impression that he was presumably posting similar things all over the place. Anyway, my impression was clearly mistaken. I will cross out my initial statements above in the talk page, to avoid giving people the wrong impression about the matrixwatch forum. --Xyzzyplugh 14:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I can understand how you came to this impression. When you do something for long enough you start to assume (wrongly sometimes) that everyone will automatically know what you are doing. Arzel 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matrix_scheme/Archive_3&oldid=1045370763"