This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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)
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)
Hello, state your case please. :) Luitgard ( talk) 00:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
A few thoughts on the current ( [1]) lead:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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)
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)
Hello, state your case please. :) Luitgard ( talk) 00:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
A few thoughts on the current ( [1]) lead:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)