Talk:Speedyclick.com

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)

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)

• The POV has been removed. The citation from the spamming allegations is sourced from a reliable source, The Spamhaus Project run by Steve Linford who is an internationally recognized expert. Spamming is abuse of the internet - what next, will Steve Dufour tag the Federal Bureau of Investigation article as being POV bias against crime? Sheesh. Orsini 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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).

• • Thank you for your question Smee, and I am pleased to provide citations.
    • Article: "Most spam generated by botnets, says expert" recognizes Steve Linford as an expert (source: ZD Net)
    • Report: "“Junk E-Mail”: An Overview of Issues and Legislation Concerning Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail (“Spam”)", (source: CRS / US Government) - Mr. Linford is quoted on page 7 of the report.
    • Article: "Experts Clarify ISP Spam Threat" (source: internetnews.com) Steve Linford and Spamhaus recognized as experts on spam
    • Article: "UK Govt fouls up anti-spam plans, say experts" (source: theregister.co.uk) Steve Linford gives an opinion as an expert on the subject
    • Article: "Spam gangs invading Toronto, says expert" (source: Julie Clow, ITWorldCanada.com) cites Steve Linford as the expert

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).

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).

Deletions

Cirt, I'm curious about the reason for the deletion of the material that came with sources (I understand about removal of unsourced material). It seemed relevant -- so why delete it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comments

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

• 13 citations, no images. Article could use some images, and expansion of (both) subsections with more citations... Smee 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Speedyclick.com. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050329225336/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HDN/is_1999_Nov_11/ai_57537852 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HDN/is_1999_Nov_11/ai_57537852

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).

• 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) 04:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Speedyclick.com. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901134056/http://securities.stanford.edu/1018/NWKC01/index.html to http://securities.stanford.edu/1018/NWKC01/index.html

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).

• 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) 09:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)