Talk:Speedyclick.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Speedyclick.com article.
Article policies
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
MMOG logo This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the the assessment scale.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Arbitrary section header

I want you to stop the tracking cookies. I am a member of speedyclick and I resent your invasion of my privacy.

littlelady1@msn.com

I'm confused on a number of levels by your remark. The speedyclick website, although it may have tracked cookies at one point, has been defunct for at least five years. Also, the editors of this wikipedia article did not necessarily have anything to do with the running of said website. Kevinmooney 05:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not POV, reliably sourced

The article seems to have a strong anti-spam point of view. I don't like spam myself, but to me it's part of the price we pay for freedom of speech. Here are a couple of expressions from the article:

"...they have further exploited lax spam regulations" and "...current hard-core and unrepentant spammers"

That doesn't sound very neutral to me. Steve Dufour 00:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Spamhaus Project as reliable source.

  • This subsection will be to discuss the reliability or lack thereof of Spamhaus as a cited source. Smee 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Orsini, you state above that Steve Linford who runs The Spamhaus Project is an internationally recognized expert? Can you provide reputable secondary sourced citations for this, here on the talk page? Because if so, that would certainly make him and his organization a reliable source for citations. Smee 00:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
      • After a perusal myself of the citations used in the article The Spamhaus Project, it most certainly looks like the site is a reliable source. On a side note, the article The Spamhaus Project itself seems to be (relatively) stable, and has not been edited since 30 April 2007. Smee 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
        • I will request a comment here from a neutral source, as well. Smee 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
There are many more sources if required, however I think the above should satisfy the criteria. Orsini 02:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, but in light of the opinions from previously un-involved editors below, I think this issue is resolved. Smee 02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Third Opinion on The Spamhaus Project as reliable source.

  • This will be a subsection for comment from a neutral editor coming from WP:3O, regarding the usage of The Spamhaus Project as a reliable source for citations within this article. Smee 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
3O As the subject of email, spam and Spamhaus is directly in line with my profession, I am very familiar with the subject of Spamhaus as it relates to the email and spam industry. It is the general opinion of the industry that Steve Linford (and spamhaus) is an expert in the field of spam and email and would be considered a reliable source. There are many people and organizations that contest entries in the Spamhaus project, but that does not change its acceptance as a reliable source. Lsi john 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. As I had already left this on WP:3O, what the hey, it will be interesting to hear more comments. Smee 01:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Actually thats where I saw it. I was not sure how to mark it answered and was about to ask you. Note that my personal opinion of Spamhaus is vastly different than my 3O here, but my POV was not requested and thus not given. Lsi john 01:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Well in that case, thank you again. You can simply remove the entry itself that I had initially put at WP:3O, and include in your edit summary something like: Removed Speedyclick.com, third opinion given, The Spamhaus Project as reliable source. FIVE Remain.. Thanks again for your help, and polite demeanor on this issue. Smee 01:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Do bear in mind that listings at Spamhaus change frequently. What is listed one way today, may be removed or listed differently tomorrow. Though the odds that if someone has been listed as a ROKSO spammer that their entry will not be easily changed. Lsi john 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, and thanks again for your time. Smee 01:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Beat me to the third opinion; I completely agree. FYI, Smee, you might want to convert the reference to use the {{cite web}} template, which even more clearly indicates that the information was accessed on the particular date, and review What to do when a reference link "goes dead" if this seems likely. According to the ROKSO FAQ, if the ROKSO record is not updated for 6 months the information will no longer be publicly accessible from the Spamhaus site. Anomie 02:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, for the suggestions, they will definitely be taken into consideration. Yours, Smee 02:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).