Talk:ALIWEB/Archive 1

message: I really can't understand this logic.  If I work for Aliweb then it should follow that I know a little about the subject.  Can you point to anything that is NOT factual about the current article?   Further - since the current site states it is the web's first search engine, and gives the date that it first started in the title, and has the same name, I think it would be quite obvious that the original Aliweb, and the current Aliweb are one in the same and of course have something more than just the name in common.  Obviously Mr. Koster is no longer involved with the Aliweb project, and his personal web page is not very complimentary of the current web site or owners.  He is certainly entitled to his opinion.  I have no animosity towards Mr. Koster and have not deleted nor intend to delete any of the references to him or his achievements as they relate to Aliweb.  His contributions to the web speak for themselves.
As for being promotional, nothing stated is not factual to my knowledge.  It just seems rather odd to delete a url to a page that states to have substantial ties to the subject matter, I state otherwise and then when you are corrected, to then delete the url again.  I would suspect that at least a negative disparaging factual statement that aliweb.com with a link is not related to the original aliweb would be in order if you believe that the current site is not related and certainly would be more accurate than simply deleting it entirely.
The bottom line is I am the lead programmer for Aliweb, and I have done extensive research into the history of Aliweb.  I know this subject, backwards, forwards, inside out.  So please, please, unless you have a real factual inaccurate mistake to fix or something factual to add to the article, stop deleting my additions to it (I'll just repost them anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliweb (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to argue with you.  Make it easy for people to verify your statements, who your are, etc.  Use some citations, create a user name, expand upon some of that history here that you know so well.Bill Slawski 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Employee

message: Alksub - What exactly is the point of deleting the links to Aliweb throughout the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.81.181 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unnecessary to link over and over again to the same site. One link in the most appropriate place in the text is the normal Wikipedia practice. In this case the most appropriate place seems to be the paragraph about the current site. I also agree with Bill that citations are required. --Genie 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: "Aliweb no longer seems to be a bona fide search engine" -- exactly what is a "bona fide search engine"?  Apparently if you can type in a search box the word "wikipedia" and get wikipedia.org or type in "google" and get google.com then it is officially "bona fide" and a search engine.
These facts are self evident to anyone who has been involved with the internet and world wide web for any length of time:
1.  Aliweb is the web's first search engine.  It's in the text books.   (what text books??? -- do some research and figure it out!)
2.  Aliweb.com uses the same code (with some corrections due to the size of the database growing beyond what was orignally anticipated) as the aliweb seach service used originally and on a number of mirror sitss all over the internet.
3.  Nexor no longer does anything with Aliweb because the lead programmer went somewhere else and the owners of Aliweb.com took over - thus the link for nexor's old aliweb service to aliweb.com when you search for the old site (which by the way was not aliweb.com - ".com" addresses at this time 1993 wasn't such a big deal)  Obviously Nexor does other things (military messaging services) than advertising agencie services which is the major component of revenue for companies that run internet search engines.
So of course when I see comments such as Ed's or Bill's stating very negative things and giving unreasonable or untrue reasons that the article should be deleted or untrue facts be stated or that the facts as stated which are quite basic and widely known are incorrect and need to be changed -- I am very suspicious that there is some other agenda going on here by perhaps people that don't have the best interests of simply writing an article of facts that people can rely on as truth.
NONE of the results from the aliweb are paid advertising.  The banners are largely from the parent company or affiliated companies.  The link list has no paid entries.   Basically it is largely as it was in the beginning except with an added link list that took about a year of research to get the format correct.  
I don't think that the article as it is written is an advertisement for aliweb.com.  It states clearly and correctly that the search results and the link list are outdated (thus the fact that google and wikipedia as well as many other existing websites do not appear in the results).  I'm sure that would make lots of people want to click immediatly and see and use the service.  As I have stated before, the original programmer has stated some negative things on his website, and he is entitled to his opinion which I do not agree with - but his contributions to the web are substantial and he deserves credit for those accomplishments (robots exclusion standard, etc.) and I have not deleted any references to him or his opinions.  If this article was about advertising and putting a positive face forward, then perhaps mentioning him or his comments would not be in the Aliweb's best interest.  However, this article is not supposed to be in anyone's best interest or slanted in any way other than to report the facts about the subject matter in a clear and concise way.  I don't remember if I or someone else started this article, but that certainly is what I have tried to do here.  Aliweb's historical significance to the web is substantial and laid the foundation for much of what followed and I believe that others can learn from that. 
So if you are not with some competitor without some hidden agenda, then obviously I apologize.  However, I think it would be far more helpful to try to add information that is relevant to the subject matter instead of trying to discredit the article and the information that is contained within which is obviously factual.
That's why I just deleted the information because it appeared to be more a "trolling" expedition rather than a sincere attempt to improve the article with factual and relevant information.
For instance, how about some links to the IAFA standard papers, and facts about who formulated them and whether they were accepted or not and by what organization?   There is tons of information out there that IS relevant and would be factual, informative, and add greatly to this article.  Where are the facts or references regarding the results being paid advertisements?  Did you call the company and get rates as to how much those cost or find a web page with that information or find one person who has paid to be in those non-existant paid results?  Aliweb might has sold their domain name to an american company . . . what domain name?  Aliweb.com?  How do you know that aliweb.com existed then?  Who created it?  When?  Why does the site say "directory data supplied by Nexor . . ." so they could have changed their domain to a .com instead of co.uk?   What is a mirror site?  Why were they necessary?  Instead of spouting a bunch of questions about the credibility of the article, uncover the facts and report them truthfully here.  Again, I don't think your initial "observations" and comments are helpful, relevant, compelling, or necessary.  They are easy and quick observations - not investigative facts.
I'm spending more time defending obvious facts than I am adding interesting facts and references to the article.  aliweb 10:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation - Hidden Agenda - Going Backwards 

message: Hello, Aliweb article editors! 
For your reading pleasure, I am restoring my 25 November comment to the Talk page, which was just deleted by an anonymous contributor. Something could be in the air, because User:Aliweb deleted a similar comment of mine over at Talk:List of search engines, leaving the history comment 'Misinformation deleted'.
Dear User Aliweb, please be patient with us and explain the nature of the misinformation so that it can be corrected. And don't delete other people's comments from article Talk pages, it can get you in trouble.  It will also help us if you sign your comments using four tildes, like ~~~~, which makes it easier to follow discussions. You may also want to check WP:COI which cautions users about editing articles about their own businesses. See my closing comment below (after the restored item) which invites your response.
====Aliweb no longer seems to be a bona fide search engine====
:When I type 'wikipedia' or 'google' into the search box at www.aliweb.com, it can't find either one! 
:Also the links one can find on the web that seem to associate Aliweb with the Nexor Co. in the UK are not working at this time. (web.nexor.co.uk is not operational). It seems possible that Aliweb might have sold their domain to an American company called Advertising Technologies Corporation, based in Lexington, Kentucky.  The relevance of www.aliweb.com to Wikipedia's article on the original Aliweb project now seems questionable. 
:The situation appears to justify Bill Slawski's earlier comment (above):
::I've done a little cleanup of this stub, including removing the link to aliweb.com, which is not related to the original ALIWEB in any way other than by name.Bill Slawski 23:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (End of restored comment)
Your replies to my observations are invited.  Does anyone have any data that suggests that www.aliweb.com is a bona fide search engine, that in any way reflects the original Archie developments of the early '90's?  Please provide reliable sources, if any are available, per WP:RS.  If there is no way of backing up the claims made in the article, I think that the WP:SPAM guidelines may apply to http://www.aliweb.com, since at first glance it seems that the only search results it returns are paid placements.  EdJohnston 17:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring a deleted comment 

message: :When I type 'wikipedia' or 'google' into the search box at www.aliweb.com, it can't find either one! 
:Also the links one can find on the web that seem to associate Aliweb with the Nexor Co. in the UK are not working at this time. (web.nexor.co.uk is not operational). It seems possible that Aliweb might have sold their domain to an American company called Advertising Technologies Corporation, based in Lexington, Kentucky.  The relevance of www.aliweb.com to Wikipedia's article on the original Aliweb project now seems questionable. 
:The situation appears to justify Bill Slawski's earlier comment (above):
::I've done a little cleanup of this stub, including removing the link to aliweb.com, which is not related to the original ALIWEB in any way other than by name.Bill Slawski 23:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (End of restored comment)
Your replies to my observations are invited.  Does anyone have any data that suggests that www.aliweb.com is a bona fide search engine, that in any way reflects the original Archie developments of the early '90's?  Please provide reliable sources, if any are available, per WP:RS.  If there is no way of backing up the claims made in the article, I think that the WP:SPAM guidelines may apply to http://www.aliweb.com, since at first glance it seems that the only search results it returns are paid placements.  EdJohnston 17:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aliweb no longer seems to be a bona fide search engine

message: → Details of the deletion itself:
*25 November 2006 19:12 (UTC) (diff) EdJohnston posted the message which he restored above.
*14 December 2006 09:21 (UTC) (diff) 74.140.187.28 deleted EdJohnston's post.
*14 December 2006 09:40 (UTC) (diff) 74.140.187.28 posted (with "Bit of sarcasm added to offset deleted misinformation" edit summary) the following:
:"I guess the database needs to be updated to so when you type wikipedia or google in the search box you will find wikipedia or google in the search results. Also the outdated link to nexor needs to be updated to nexor.com / Anything else need to be fixed? Let me know. aliweb@aliweb.com"   (Emphasis added.)
*14 December 2006 17:54 (UTC) (diff) 74.140.187.28 deleted (with "minor edit" edit summary) own post.
→ Comment: The early history (May 2004 - July 2005) of Aliweb shows a variety of editors slowly building a small and increasingly encyclopedic article.  In August 2005 the first of several apparently associated anonymous IPs began to step in.  74.140.187.28 is only one of them.  The list (so far):
::12.203.102.190 (talk) (contribs) 11 August 2005
::12.202.236.138 (talk) (contribs) 25 November 2005
::12.202.236.233 (talk) (contribs) 6 December 2005, 20 April 2006
::74.131.81.181 (talk) (contribs) 27 May 2006 - 24 September 2006
::User:Aliweb (talk) (contribs) 13 June 2006 - 6 January 2007
::74.140.187.28 (talk) (contribs) 20 November 2006 - 2 January 2007
→ [Retrieved and contributed by  Athænara    ✉   07:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page history

message: I am open to correction here, but why the consistent and insistent use of "is" rather than "was" in the first sentence? The statement refers to a point in time in the past, hence my preference for the use of "was", which is the past tense. Using "is" is unnatural in this instance and, as stated in the comments of one of my earlier edits, the use of "was" is not some sort of statement about the current incarnation of Aliweb or some sort of statement that they "lost" first place. (After all, if you were the first, you are were still the first.) I am neither involved in, interested in, or knowledgeable on the subject of the current Aliweb's connection to the original Aliweb. My beef is with grammar. For example, you can refer to a team in some sort of ongoing tournament or competition saying, "Team A is in first place." If you are referring to the same point in time in last year's competition, you would say, "Team A was in first place." The "competition" to be the first search engine is in the past. Get it? Craig (t|c) 21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:V, the person who wants to include a controversial statement in an article needs to provide a reference.  The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If you're not able to provide a reference, the statement should be removed. EdJohnston 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: None of the above hot air addresses the topic of this section, that being the tense used in the opening sentence. I have fixed it again until Aliweb's roving censor addresses the topic. --Craig (t|c) 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Subject is" meaning presently as in now.  "Subject was"  past tense in the past.  Aliweb is the web's first and oldest search engine.  Aliweb was the web's first and oldest search engine.  How can it be "was"?  Did the place in time change?  So it was first, but now it is something else.  Doesn't make sense to me.  I obvioulsy want it to be proper and perhaps no one is wording this very well.  Perhaps it doesnt' need "is" or "was" it needs to be reworded so that it indicates it "is" still in existence, and is the first search engine in some other way.  It is written.  It was written.  Clinton's according to what the definition of "is" is.  hmmmmaliweb 08:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yeah, OK, but I don't know where someone named Clinton comes into the picture. I see that the version that pre-dates this debacle has been restored and I like that wording even better: "ALIWEB ... can be considered the first Web search engine...." Then again, I suppose it could sound a little "weasely". That said, I still stand by my assertion that using the present tense with the previous wording is simply incorrect. You are mixing up two different things in your example above, which was not the wording used. Yes (assuming the fact itself is correct), ALIWEB is the oldest search engine, but that is the same as saying ALIWEB was the first search engine. And, for the record, I did try a couple of times ( and ) to qualify the wording as you suggest, but you chose to delete my efforts. --Craig (t|c) 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was vs is

message: This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
A disruptive editor is an editor who:
*Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
*Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
In addition, such editors may:
*Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
(Excerpt from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing provided by  Athænara    ✉   23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of disruptive editing

message: A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the individual agendas or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article.
This includes promotion of oneself or other individuals, causes, organizations, and companies you work for, and their products, as well as suppression of negative information, and criticism of competitors.
If you have a conflict of interest, you should:
# avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
# avoid breaching relevant policies  on autobiographies and neutrality
# avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
# avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
(Excerpt from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest provided by  Athænara    ✉   23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: "What about advertisers?" 
There are basically three forms: adding excessive external links to one's company, outright replacing of legitimate articles with advertising, and writing glowing articles on one's own company.
The first and second forms are treated as pure vandalism and the articles are reverted. Most Wikipedians loathe spam, and spammers are dealt with especially severely.
The third form is normally dealt with by editing the article for a neutral point of view or by deleting the article.
(Excerpt from Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Advertisers contributed by  Athænara    ✉   04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisers

message: The Aliweb COI/N section is now archived in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1 (without the exhaustive diffs above which are primarily of interest to editors of the Aliweb article).
I archived it at 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Noticeboard section archived

message: Per this comment by User:MER-C at the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, if well-sourced information is removed from an article, it is appropriate to revert it and then leave the vandal warning . The recent removal of a reference by User:203.94.240.90, with no edit summary or discussion on Talk, appears to fit this criterion.  However this particular removal appears to be just nutty vandalism rather than POV vandalism. I had already left a conventional vandal warning. EdJohnston 18:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of correctly-sourced information is vandalism