Talk:Federation Against Software Theft

message: Sept 2015 - I removed a link that pointed to an expired domain. The link was as follows: http://www.computersoftware.com/newsletterstory.asp?storyId=226
It would be interesting to document some of their recent activity - they claim to have, amongst other things, pushed a scottish council into purchasing £70k worht of software licences to bring them into compliance... but I can't find anything other than their own site to reference this and there's nothing but a statement on their site. 
Also, their current URL is http://www.fast.org.uk/ - I have added this to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.107 (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is highly POV.  Look at the language being used : "FAST victims tend to be those who have not realised that there is plenty of high-quality free software available. FAST therefore picks on the ignorant and vulnerable." I don't know how anyone could think this was written from a neutral point of view. Amren (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So fix it.  You haven't made the lamest effort to do so.  If you think you can justify what this organization is up to, you can fill in relevant section.  Oh, and do the same for final solution while you are at it.  As you object to the use of the word 'victim' I have removed it.  If I could find anything to mitigate what these people are up to, I would have put it in.  I have now put in a short paragraph trying say the kind of thing these people might say to defend themselves, without quite resorting to using the language of emotive mis-metaphors muddled with legal threats.  The reader is invited to reflect for a few moments as to whether the claims made are borne out by the facts.
This read like a discussion page, with people posting comments on it as if it were a message board (to me.)  Thus, i edited it: not with vandalism, but with an experimental NPOV repair.
Special:Contributions/anon (User talk:anon) 12:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This article is extremely bad, once you get past the fact its unwikified cites, both the tone and style is unencyclopedic, the article reading more like a company press release. Most of the sources are bad, for example the legal aid lawyers site and several points can't spell the word Lawyer correctly, similiarly the cite about investors in software, that "As a direct result of their work the ISO SAM ISO/IEC19770-1 " the cite says they were involved not that it was a direct result of their work. This article needs a complete overhaul, better sourcing, wikify and a NPOV tone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.8 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Article

message: I have again removed a long section about "Drink or Die".
* Articles at Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. A Wikipedia article may not say "Company X earned $Y illegally". It may say "Person Z sais that company X earned $Y illegally" provided it cites a reliable source for the statement.
* According to the rules on libel avoidance at Wikipedia, it is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. And following the latter link, "libel ... is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give ... a business ... a negative image".
-- John of Reading (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view / Libel 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=FE3B86A3-4E78-45CA-AE73-B99C1EAEC62E
*:Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Federation Against Software Theft. 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/20080220010211/http://www.lawyerslegalaid.co.uk/faqs.cfm to http://www.lawyerslegalaid.co.uk/faqs.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified