Talk:Dale Begg-Smith

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Not vandalism edit

I object to factual information being sited as vandalism. The following domains are definitely related to Begg-Smith. References here: http://www.0dp.com/aboutus.html

  • www.newtopsites.com
  • www.0dp.com

http://www.theage.com.au/news/breaking/olympic-champ-made-big-bucks-in-popup-ads/2006/02/16/1140037817825.html

  • FreeScratchandWin.com
  • 2nd-thought.com

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gtpdspin (talk • contribs) {|}. These should be mentioned in the site, however not linked - promoting his websites isn't really a good thing HardwareBob 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC) The Age does not say that he is involved with FreeScratchandWin or 2nd-thought, just that he's associated with companies associated with the above. ZeroDP is not a reliable source. Andjam 01:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sandwiches Vandalism edit

Where does the sandwich related vandalism that keeps being added come from? Shogun 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

hostis onlinei generis edit

(Potentially defamatory comment (a comment not intended to help improve the article) removed by Andjam 11:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)) 195.70.32.136 13:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image of stamp edit

There's a picture that includes a stamp at Australia post stamp shop. It'll need editing first, though. Fair use rationale will probably include that it helps illustrates an interest by Australia in the Winter Olympics, and also that it helps illustrate that some organisations endorse (or are perceived by Begg-Smith's critics as endorsing) Begg-Smith even after allegations have been aired about him. Andjam 11:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The man won a gold medal in the winter Olympics for Australia, of course they are going to endorse him! There is no contradiction here, people can do both good things and bad things. He's also still very young. -- Blorg 10:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Deleted paragraph edit

Although the paragraph just deleted had one citation within it, most of it was uncited and wasn't written in a NPOV and encyclopedic tone. I'm also about to remove the categories spyware and malware, partially because people aren't currently listed in those categories. Andjam (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply


Questioning The Controversy edit

I don't understand why this Dale Begg-Smith article has been flagged as "inappropriate" or more specifically "non-encyclopedic in tone." I suspect that it is the unflattering implications that Begg-Smith may be involved with the dissemination internet spyware may have Wikipedia administrators worried about potential libel lawsuits. The spyware allegations *are* in fact cited, albeit thinly. But subsequent internet searches will corroborate Begg-Smith's at least partial role in the more invasive aspects of internet advertising. I hope that Wikipedia isn't trying to say "if you don't have something nice to report, don't report it at all." That sounds like the thin end of a fat wedge.

I would think that in the true spirit of Wikipedia, the article should remain. In fact, if others want to contest Begg-Smith's controversial business dealings, then simply speak up with an addendum to the article, or present compelling evidence that the allegations are nonsense.

Someone who sided with Begg-Smith could in fact counter with: Look - internet "spyware" encompasses a broad and vague category of advertising. A lot of people engage in it. So who's to say that his business activities are truly nefarious?

So a little bit of "point-counterpoint" could be responsibly woven into the article, making it better and richer. Wouldn't that be a better response than simply taking the story down because you might get a call from a lawyer ?

There's nothing wrong with the article. --Net enthused (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia sets a high bar for negative material about living people. You can read about it at Wikipedia's policy page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dale Begg-Smith. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dale Begg-Smith. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply