This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the VoIP spam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Speculative?

I find large portions of this article speculative - although I agree that "VoIP is a good thing" and eliminating VoIP spam will one day be done somehow, there's no reason to believe that current e-mail filtering technology will apply directly to voice call filtering, and there's no need to go to so much verbosity to legitimize the use of VoIP, as I don't think anyone is suggesting that we eliminate it. Also, there are no references - and at least the claim in the intro that it's "received a great deal of attention from marketers and the trade press" needs citation. This whole article is highly speculative. Dcoetzee 19:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Tag

I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)