Talk:Spam Prevention Early Warning System

message: I reverted a big edit a little while ago, and noted it was POV.  Largely because of this sentence: Also, "taking responsibility" often means "drag them through the courts until one of us runs out of money".  In retrospect, I'm not sure it was quite as POV as I initially thought, but I still think it was poorly-written and not worth rewriting half the page for. eaolson 03:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted my version back, please feel free to tidy up the language, or rephrase the offending sentence. But it really can't be left as it was. (See the "Is it just me" comment below.) --Billpg 18:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It is just you. The article is factual, and while the note about not being SPEWS is uncommon it may be useful given that many people fail to understand that the SPEWS operators are really anonymous. --Md 13:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the whole "Writing to NANAE" part is wrong. Not biased, but wrong. NANAE is not SPEWS, and several of the regulars tend to really resent the implication that their newsgroup should be a dumping-ground for complaints  about SPEWS' list. And yes, a lot of the text here is non-encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a collection of how-to guides nor netiquette guides. --FOo 16:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Looks like the same anonymous user who was vandalizing the article with wild claims has registered to get around the semi-protection. Removing the vandalization. SirFozzie 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aug2006 on discussion

message: Your description of it being a "Catch-22" is both POV and incorrect. There is no Catch-22. All the listed party has to do is stop doing business with the provider, and his problem will go away. "Catch-22" implies that the situation is impossible to correct because of contradictory needs.
The article does not claim that SPEWS motivation of being anonymous was to avoid lawsuits. It probably was, but the article does not state that. What the article states is that one of the benefits of being anonymous is the avoidance of lawsuits. Care to contradict that? Does being anonymous facilitate lawsuits? If so, how? Kww 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was getting tricked by some artifacts of the "diff" listing (I hate how it highlights blocks of text as changed when they have not been). Trying again. Kww 18:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 5, 2007 reversions 

message: To those who are trying to insert an unsourced accusation about Shaw Communications -- please quit it. We don't do unsourced accusations on Wikipedia. Go find a reliable source, or just leave it out. --FOo 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced accusations will be deleted 

message: At least one well known spammer posted an article in NANAE claiming to be a SPEWS administrator. What is true is that there was no plausible claim to be SPEWS.
Similarly, several articles claimed that specific people other than the authors were SPEWS administrators. As above, no evidence was ever presented to support the claims, and they were widely considered to be bogus. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  There were people claiming to be SPEWS