Talk:Sanford Wallace/Archives/2013

Comment by article creator
I'm plainly shocked that the spam articles and Wikipedia community in general appears to have completely forgotten the original King of Spam. :) KeithTyler(2004)

March 2009 Update Needed
Sanford was recently (3/09) served papers in regards to Facebook spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.91.164 (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV problem

 * I have removed "shameless" for the following reasons.


 * It certainly is a descriptor that indicates that he 'should' have shame for the things he has/is doing... for by definition someone being shameless indicates that they are uncharacteristically lacking shame. This is not up to Wikipedia to decide, nor is it something anyone individually can decide. This is about facts.


 * If one wants to create a paragraph about society and what a general interpretation of him has been in the community (which I thoroughly encourage) then someone should do that and provide excerps from published articles. However it must clearly be disclaimed that such information is based on a statistic of opinions.


 * To include such information without protecting the reader creates an artificial bias that is not acceptable.


 * --SirDecius 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the guy is slime, but things like "Thanks to an uncharacteristically shameless self-marketing campaign," seem pretty NPOV to me. -- Khym Chanur 23:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess my point is that very few companies before or since that time would be blatant enough to advertise widely that they do high-volume email mass marketing, but they did. In other words, most spamming operations that advertise don't proudly state their unpopular techniques, but they did so, without shame, in contrast to others. On its face, the wording is not POV. - KeithTyler 07:47, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * From what I know about Wallace, a shameless self-marketing campaign doesn't sound uncharacteristic. Also do we know for a fact that he registered spamford.com in spite?  He might have wanted to hold the domain so his enemies couldn't use it to organise a protest against him. --84.9.21.119 01:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be to _spite_ his enemies, would it not? - KeithTyler 07:07, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not uncharacteristic for Wallace, but that's not the context -- it is uncharacteristic among mass email marketers, and was even at that time. - KeithTyler 07:07, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * He's also the guy who had an opinion piece on spam published in USA Today, and then quoted from that on his web page (without even mentioning that he wrote it himself) to "prove" that many don't really find spam all that annoying. "Shameless" is actually the kindest word I can think of to describe him. 62.181.255.64 (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy's a petty criminal. Calling him an e-mail "marketer" is unmitigated bullshit.

Incorrect. Spam is not a petty crime any more. And shameless is the correct word, and it is NPOV in this case. Wallace did indeed show no shame. Not at all. --Klaws 10:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dictates that either judgements not be made, or be balanced. He calls himself a marketer, others in his field call him and/or themselves marketers, so some credence should be given to that designation. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 19:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "It's not uncharacteristic for Wallace, but that's not the context -- it is uncharacteristic among mass email marketers, and was even at that time."     As already pointed above, this phrase is badly worded and ambiguous. You're mentioning Spamford before, so at this moment it's not clear if you're writing about Spamford or the "mass email marketers".  Rephrase it, please! 201.19.148.52 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken link(s)
This link currently isn't working:


 * U.S. files first suit against Internet 'spy ware'

Searching the CNN site for "Sanford Wallace", I there's only two articles, neither of which is about the lawsuit. Where did it go? -- Khym Chanur 06:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent question, I can only find other blogs linking to it. However, I did find this updated story about this case: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/01/04/spyware.ap/index.html

Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  20:28, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
I don't personally care, but someone else will. the text '''Wallace created 11,000 fake profiles using automated software programs in violation of MySpace's terms of use agreement, the company said in a complaint filed March 23 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. MySpace's complaint, which seeks unspecified damages, accuses Wallace of violating the 2003 U.S. Can-Spam Act that regulates the use of unsolicited e-mail.''' is directly taken from this article. I don't feel like changing it, but it probably should be. --NukeMTV 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)