![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Bizarrely, this article hasn't been hit with speedy deletion yet, so I'm taking a preemptive tack. Please don't delete this page, this program helped me get rid of a nasty browser hijacker that Ad-Aware, AVG, and HijackThis couldn't find, I just want people to be able to find it via wikipedia (if they're like me, this is where they look first for just about everything). That said, I know it's insufficient as such. There's another stub for the corporation, Malwarebytes, which was marked for speedy deletion, and you'll find a similar talk page with more of my meek pleading there. Both the company and the shareware are referenced by both spyware and malware.
Fredgoat ( talk) 02:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there it is, speedy deletion. And this one for "blatant advertising" too! Also, I thought I fixed the Malwarebytes page, but apparently it was still "blatant advertising". I modeled both of these off lavasoft and ad-aware, I don't understand what I could've done differently, and the Malwarebytes article wasn't left up for even an hour before it was speedily deleted. I wonder if anyone will even read this before deleting this page, too. Why do I bother editing and contributing? I guess you guys have it all under control.
Fredgoat ( talk) 02:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Trying desperately to walk the line between non-notability and blatant advertising...seriously, this is an important article, gorrammit! Thank you Ron Ritzman for taking off the SD. Maybe some other time I'll go over and try to remake a Malwarebytes page.
Fredgoat ( talk) 06:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I also used this program to remove Antivirus Vista 2008 a while ago. I also ask that this article stay, I was having a fair amount of trouble finding something to remove it and this program did the trick. The article may not be the best in the world right now, but it will likely improve with time.-- Arnos78 ( talk) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Jejeje (or is Arnos a Malwarebytes agent? Oooh...) - Fredgoat ( talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This article still offers very little in any way that's not blatent advertising. Don't people just search google for stuff like this? Why is this article relevant to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubboy1969 ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is anything relevant to Wikipedia? Why is the Ad-aware article relevant? "Relevant to Wikipedia" is a laughable concept. And speaking of "blatent", you are a "blatent" troll, and probably also a sock. If you're serious about critiquing the article in a meaningful way, try better and I'll play nice. - Fredgoat ( talk) 00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure - could be related to the original speedy deletion suggestion being due to "blatant advertising" - somebody thought I must be a Malwarebytes agent when I first created the article. But I thought that was resolved. - Fredgoat ( talk) 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
These aren't appropriate for all sorts of reasons, especially when they come in groups of five. These will be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I am suspicious of previously unknown "Anti-Virus" software. On the surface, this company seems honest, but I have difficulty finding independent opinions from reputable sources on it.
BTW, MalwareBytes.org does not link to this page (maybe that could redirect to this page?)
Also, this company has several other products that are not mentioned on this page such as RogueRemover, FileASSASSIN, RegASSASSIN, StartUpLite, Qoofix, E2TakeOut, and AboutBuster. It would be helpful to have more background on the company and its management as well as these other products.
I would think this page should be more focused on the pedigree of the company first, with later sections on ALL of its products. Maybe, even, this requires a page for the company and separate pages for each of its products? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.70.238 ( talk) 06:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
OK ... that's about all I can take for one sitting. Hopefully an improvement, but as mentioned above, this should be listed as the company rather than the program MBAM. Also, please allow a couple days for me to remove the redundant entries to the malwarebytes.org site, and figure which page should be listed as the goto page. I don't know if we can save this little gem or not, only TPTB will know for sure. I thought it was worth a shot, but often with the rapid change on the computer landscape, published sources can be difficult to find, and this company is relatively new by many standards. I think I can find news articles, but as I said, "published" books take time, and computer related info is often outdated before it can be published. Ched ( talk) 03:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In line with TechOutsider's excellent reworking of this page, I've moved it to Malwarebytes. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Article improvements are duly noted and appreciated ;) Ched ( talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated TechOutsider ( talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
Malwarebytes released an update to MBAM that introduced a new content delivery network that distributes updates based on the location. Maybe this could be added to the article?
Securityadvisor - Talk | Contribs 21:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
<-- Actually, it might be more proper to see if malwarebytes.org has a screenshot, and what type of license they have - the way you fixed up the Norton sites. Another note, I remember seeing on a forum board somewhere that there are issues they are working on - in that 64-bit doesn't work as desired - I've been trying to find that page, but haven't yet. If you run across that thread anywhere, let me know and I'll put it into the article. Cheers ;) — Ched ( talk) 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Note, program still runs on 64-bit, but real time protection is the issue. — Ched ( talk) 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a huge issue; however could someone get a sshot of MBAM 1.33? TechOutsider ( talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
And I couldn't find any information aobut FA being integrated with Mbam. TechOutsider ( talk) 01:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
Couldn't find any information about Boxshot. What is it exactly? TechOutsider ( talk) 01:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)techoutsider
I've made a couple changes to the MBAM / Malwarebytes Anti-virus reverts. Hopefully this will be an acceptable compromise to all. — Ched ( talk) 07:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this entry. I don't question the ref or even the statement; however, (and I hate this phrase) it should be noted that it is being compared to full blown anti-virus programs, where MBAM is a program designed to target specific items rather than as an anti-virus program. I'm thinking the wording should reflect this. — Ched ( talk) 19:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry folks, but I think there are several pretty big problems with the rewrite. None of Malwarebytes' products other than MBAM appear to be particularly notable. Repurposing the article around the company when it's really only known for one product isn't a good idea. Furthermore, none of the issues givne in the previous version have actually been addressed; the article is still largely promotional, and most of the sources are either primary or unreliable (especially the forum link which states than MBAM removes "only three percent of malware", which a dreadfully misleading statistic).
As such, I think the article should be moved back to the old title and reverted to the pre-rewrite version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
And I'll sandbox a section or two in an effort to bring the bulleted info into a more acceptable MOS style. Let's hold off on this revert to January thing for the time being - I'd hate to see all of TechOutsider,s hard work and research simply removed with a revert. In total, the article has already shown a great improvement since it was listed for XfD. Simply because it can benefit with more work isn't a reason to start over. — Ched ( talk) 14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
"Furthermore, none of the issues givne in the previous version have actually been addressed; the article is still largely promotional, and most of the sources are either primary or unreliable (especially the forum link which states than MBAM removes "only three percent of malware", which a dreadfully misleading statistic)."
True, MBAM does detect >3% of malware according to SSUpdater.com. Anyways, I couldn't find any issues raised in the previous version of the article. I suggest keeping the info. on other products; it does pad the article a little bit :) TechOutsider ( talk) 00:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsder
As for POV, I deleted the third-party reception section; nothing particularly notable. Also hoping to satisfy the ppl who started this. However, it was reverted as vandalism, eh? TechOutsider ( talk) 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
moved from article - please discuss:
Since this item doesn't really fit WP:RS, I moving it here to discuss. also see: WP:SELFPUB. Now if consensus says it should remain, I'd request that it also state the fact that the forum that did this testing, tested MBAM against 30-day trial, and commercial grade anti-virus and anti-spyware programs. Since MBAM is a nitch item so to speak, it is not normally run in the types of testing that ssupdater did. — Ched ( talk) 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
← I don't agree with removing the reception section - that's pretty standard stuff. Let's consider putting that back in, and maybe cleaning up the wording rather than deleting it. — Ched ( talk) 00:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
So, basically, someone from an unregistered IP tried to say something about MBAM detecting >3% of malware. True, it does detect >3% of malware; however that is according to ssupdater.com, not exactly considered a reliable source because:
Also, read this thread. An over zealous poster ... Max Zorin ... strongly argued against MBAM, questioning the POV of many of the Wilder forums members and overall, questioning the neutrality and brushing in the possibility that many of the people at Wilders worked for MBAM or were affiliated with M BAM. He claims that MBAM cannot detect much of today's advanced threats; only one person staff and 5000 sigs (actually, there are 8 ppl and there are 5000 generic sigs). And he refs to SSUpdater's test.
Max's last post is here. He wants his membership to be deleted. The time he posted was February 7th, 2009, 07:33 PM.
Max is also a member (a VIP actually) at SSUpdater. He recently made a thread titled "wilders is dead" and basically proclaims that they are all slanted towards MBAM. Note his second post, he is rather sarcastic; "Fantastic, they have delted my membership!"
The post time was: Feb 7 2009, 08:06 PM
Sounds like he did not expect his account to be deleted. He apparently tried to make it look like Wilders deleted his account to shut him up, basically. Well, that's my story, and I believe the guy behind the IP address editing this article and saying it's non- neutral POV is Max. Not that I am a die-hard supporter of MBAM; I just happen to have used it a bit from recommendations and wanted to improve this article. If you look at the norton forums (me now banned from there), MBAM is recommended in every other post. Thanks for hearing me out. TechOutsider ( talk) 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
Oh, forgot to mention my Utopian vision for this article. Let's
"Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs."
That section is far from readable.
Allright? Let's try to reach a consensus instead of us each making our own edits. TechOutsider ( talk) 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
Technically, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware isn't an antivirus program. It is an anti-malware program but if you don't want that then it can fall under the antispyware category. Malwarebytes itself has stated that MBAM isn't an antivirus.
Definitely agree - not an anti-virus program.
but I won't argue with a change if the group prefers something else. — Ched ~ (yes?) 23:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the "third party" mentions from the "Reception" since the source is a non-credible affiliate website, which makes money from sales of Malwarebytes. I also removed the glowing recommendation of Malwarebytes from Cleverbridge, the company which runs said affiliate program. Please don't add these back. 216.223.143.38 ( talk) 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Bizarrely, this article hasn't been hit with speedy deletion yet, so I'm taking a preemptive tack. Please don't delete this page, this program helped me get rid of a nasty browser hijacker that Ad-Aware, AVG, and HijackThis couldn't find, I just want people to be able to find it via wikipedia (if they're like me, this is where they look first for just about everything). That said, I know it's insufficient as such. There's another stub for the corporation, Malwarebytes, which was marked for speedy deletion, and you'll find a similar talk page with more of my meek pleading there. Both the company and the shareware are referenced by both spyware and malware.
Fredgoat ( talk) 02:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there it is, speedy deletion. And this one for "blatant advertising" too! Also, I thought I fixed the Malwarebytes page, but apparently it was still "blatant advertising". I modeled both of these off lavasoft and ad-aware, I don't understand what I could've done differently, and the Malwarebytes article wasn't left up for even an hour before it was speedily deleted. I wonder if anyone will even read this before deleting this page, too. Why do I bother editing and contributing? I guess you guys have it all under control.
Fredgoat ( talk) 02:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Trying desperately to walk the line between non-notability and blatant advertising...seriously, this is an important article, gorrammit! Thank you Ron Ritzman for taking off the SD. Maybe some other time I'll go over and try to remake a Malwarebytes page.
Fredgoat ( talk) 06:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I also used this program to remove Antivirus Vista 2008 a while ago. I also ask that this article stay, I was having a fair amount of trouble finding something to remove it and this program did the trick. The article may not be the best in the world right now, but it will likely improve with time.-- Arnos78 ( talk) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Jejeje (or is Arnos a Malwarebytes agent? Oooh...) - Fredgoat ( talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This article still offers very little in any way that's not blatent advertising. Don't people just search google for stuff like this? Why is this article relevant to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubboy1969 ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is anything relevant to Wikipedia? Why is the Ad-aware article relevant? "Relevant to Wikipedia" is a laughable concept. And speaking of "blatent", you are a "blatent" troll, and probably also a sock. If you're serious about critiquing the article in a meaningful way, try better and I'll play nice. - Fredgoat ( talk) 00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure - could be related to the original speedy deletion suggestion being due to "blatant advertising" - somebody thought I must be a Malwarebytes agent when I first created the article. But I thought that was resolved. - Fredgoat ( talk) 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
These aren't appropriate for all sorts of reasons, especially when they come in groups of five. These will be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I am suspicious of previously unknown "Anti-Virus" software. On the surface, this company seems honest, but I have difficulty finding independent opinions from reputable sources on it.
BTW, MalwareBytes.org does not link to this page (maybe that could redirect to this page?)
Also, this company has several other products that are not mentioned on this page such as RogueRemover, FileASSASSIN, RegASSASSIN, StartUpLite, Qoofix, E2TakeOut, and AboutBuster. It would be helpful to have more background on the company and its management as well as these other products.
I would think this page should be more focused on the pedigree of the company first, with later sections on ALL of its products. Maybe, even, this requires a page for the company and separate pages for each of its products? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.70.238 ( talk) 06:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
OK ... that's about all I can take for one sitting. Hopefully an improvement, but as mentioned above, this should be listed as the company rather than the program MBAM. Also, please allow a couple days for me to remove the redundant entries to the malwarebytes.org site, and figure which page should be listed as the goto page. I don't know if we can save this little gem or not, only TPTB will know for sure. I thought it was worth a shot, but often with the rapid change on the computer landscape, published sources can be difficult to find, and this company is relatively new by many standards. I think I can find news articles, but as I said, "published" books take time, and computer related info is often outdated before it can be published. Ched ( talk) 03:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In line with TechOutsider's excellent reworking of this page, I've moved it to Malwarebytes. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Article improvements are duly noted and appreciated ;) Ched ( talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated TechOutsider ( talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
Malwarebytes released an update to MBAM that introduced a new content delivery network that distributes updates based on the location. Maybe this could be added to the article?
Securityadvisor - Talk | Contribs 21:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
<-- Actually, it might be more proper to see if malwarebytes.org has a screenshot, and what type of license they have - the way you fixed up the Norton sites. Another note, I remember seeing on a forum board somewhere that there are issues they are working on - in that 64-bit doesn't work as desired - I've been trying to find that page, but haven't yet. If you run across that thread anywhere, let me know and I'll put it into the article. Cheers ;) — Ched ( talk) 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Note, program still runs on 64-bit, but real time protection is the issue. — Ched ( talk) 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a huge issue; however could someone get a sshot of MBAM 1.33? TechOutsider ( talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
And I couldn't find any information aobut FA being integrated with Mbam. TechOutsider ( talk) 01:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
Couldn't find any information about Boxshot. What is it exactly? TechOutsider ( talk) 01:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)techoutsider
I've made a couple changes to the MBAM / Malwarebytes Anti-virus reverts. Hopefully this will be an acceptable compromise to all. — Ched ( talk) 07:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this entry. I don't question the ref or even the statement; however, (and I hate this phrase) it should be noted that it is being compared to full blown anti-virus programs, where MBAM is a program designed to target specific items rather than as an anti-virus program. I'm thinking the wording should reflect this. — Ched ( talk) 19:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry folks, but I think there are several pretty big problems with the rewrite. None of Malwarebytes' products other than MBAM appear to be particularly notable. Repurposing the article around the company when it's really only known for one product isn't a good idea. Furthermore, none of the issues givne in the previous version have actually been addressed; the article is still largely promotional, and most of the sources are either primary or unreliable (especially the forum link which states than MBAM removes "only three percent of malware", which a dreadfully misleading statistic).
As such, I think the article should be moved back to the old title and reverted to the pre-rewrite version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
And I'll sandbox a section or two in an effort to bring the bulleted info into a more acceptable MOS style. Let's hold off on this revert to January thing for the time being - I'd hate to see all of TechOutsider,s hard work and research simply removed with a revert. In total, the article has already shown a great improvement since it was listed for XfD. Simply because it can benefit with more work isn't a reason to start over. — Ched ( talk) 14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
"Furthermore, none of the issues givne in the previous version have actually been addressed; the article is still largely promotional, and most of the sources are either primary or unreliable (especially the forum link which states than MBAM removes "only three percent of malware", which a dreadfully misleading statistic)."
True, MBAM does detect >3% of malware according to SSUpdater.com. Anyways, I couldn't find any issues raised in the previous version of the article. I suggest keeping the info. on other products; it does pad the article a little bit :) TechOutsider ( talk) 00:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsder
As for POV, I deleted the third-party reception section; nothing particularly notable. Also hoping to satisfy the ppl who started this. However, it was reverted as vandalism, eh? TechOutsider ( talk) 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
moved from article - please discuss:
Since this item doesn't really fit WP:RS, I moving it here to discuss. also see: WP:SELFPUB. Now if consensus says it should remain, I'd request that it also state the fact that the forum that did this testing, tested MBAM against 30-day trial, and commercial grade anti-virus and anti-spyware programs. Since MBAM is a nitch item so to speak, it is not normally run in the types of testing that ssupdater did. — Ched ( talk) 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
← I don't agree with removing the reception section - that's pretty standard stuff. Let's consider putting that back in, and maybe cleaning up the wording rather than deleting it. — Ched ( talk) 00:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
So, basically, someone from an unregistered IP tried to say something about MBAM detecting >3% of malware. True, it does detect >3% of malware; however that is according to ssupdater.com, not exactly considered a reliable source because:
Also, read this thread. An over zealous poster ... Max Zorin ... strongly argued against MBAM, questioning the POV of many of the Wilder forums members and overall, questioning the neutrality and brushing in the possibility that many of the people at Wilders worked for MBAM or were affiliated with M BAM. He claims that MBAM cannot detect much of today's advanced threats; only one person staff and 5000 sigs (actually, there are 8 ppl and there are 5000 generic sigs). And he refs to SSUpdater's test.
Max's last post is here. He wants his membership to be deleted. The time he posted was February 7th, 2009, 07:33 PM.
Max is also a member (a VIP actually) at SSUpdater. He recently made a thread titled "wilders is dead" and basically proclaims that they are all slanted towards MBAM. Note his second post, he is rather sarcastic; "Fantastic, they have delted my membership!"
The post time was: Feb 7 2009, 08:06 PM
Sounds like he did not expect his account to be deleted. He apparently tried to make it look like Wilders deleted his account to shut him up, basically. Well, that's my story, and I believe the guy behind the IP address editing this article and saying it's non- neutral POV is Max. Not that I am a die-hard supporter of MBAM; I just happen to have used it a bit from recommendations and wanted to improve this article. If you look at the norton forums (me now banned from there), MBAM is recommended in every other post. Thanks for hearing me out. TechOutsider ( talk) 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
Oh, forgot to mention my Utopian vision for this article. Let's
"Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs."
That section is far from readable.
Allright? Let's try to reach a consensus instead of us each making our own edits. TechOutsider ( talk) 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
Technically, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware isn't an antivirus program. It is an anti-malware program but if you don't want that then it can fall under the antispyware category. Malwarebytes itself has stated that MBAM isn't an antivirus.
Definitely agree - not an anti-virus program.
but I won't argue with a change if the group prefers something else. — Ched ~ (yes?) 23:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the "third party" mentions from the "Reception" since the source is a non-credible affiliate website, which makes money from sales of Malwarebytes. I also removed the glowing recommendation of Malwarebytes from Cleverbridge, the company which runs said affiliate program. Please don't add these back. 216.223.143.38 ( talk) 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |