User talk:Dgtsyb/Archives/2008/06

Wrongly Labeling Links as Linkspam
Can you please stop undoing the changes I make to both these pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Signaling_System_7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGTRAN

I keep adding the link to the newly available book, posted in full, free by me. There is not a better reference on the Internet for the protocol. But you keep removing it calling it linkspam for some unexplained reason. And to make matters worst you keep changing the link to be one of IEC which is a light weight third hand piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedryburgh (talk • contribs) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added two more warnings to your talk page. Please consider them.


 * I have reverted your edits again because: The link is to your own commercial site, first through a sock puppet, and then as this user is against Wikipedia's external link policy. (Links to avoid) Also in contravention of that policy: The linked site does not provide a unique resource (the book is available by normal means).  The link is intended to promote your own commercial site (External link spamming).  The link is to a site that primarily exists to sell products or services.  The book linked is not even referenced by the  articles and is therefore not source material for the article.  The book could be linked using the ISBN Linking Format, instead of linking your commercial website.  Dgtsyb June 6, 2008 00:31 UTC [the date signed on the left should surely read the 12th? LeeDryburgh June 13, 2008 11:25 UTC)

I completely dispute your assertions above in particular "The linked site does not provide a unique resource (the book is available by normal means)."; could you be so kind as to expand upon what you mean? Furthermore I'd like to raise the severity of this dispute. LeeDryburgh June 13, 2008 11:25 UTC


 * See WP:EL, item 1 and 15. If the article where featured, any reference to the book would be by ISBN number (i.e. available by normal means) instead of linking to your commercial website.  However, to be referenced in this fashion, the article would actually need to reference the book in a citation.  You see, it is not the reference to the book that is link spamming, it is the link to a site providing commercial products and services to get it.  So adding a reference like this to the Signaling System 7 or SIGTRAN section:




 * would be clearly acceptable, particularly if some part of the article referenced the book as a source by adding a citation. By following the ISBN link in the citation, even a downloadable copy of the book can be found easily. Dgtsyb (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to seek a third opinion because you keep making untrue assertions. The link provided is the only legal way of seeing the books contents. There is no effort to "get it" as you suggest above, rather when you click the link you are straight into the book contents. I suggest that you calm down and think a little. If an author is putting his work online free of charge and is taking the time to link to the contents from within Wikipedia, contents not available elsewhere, then it very much serves the commons. You removing the link damages the commons. LeeDryburgh June 13, 2008 15:03 UTC

Desist Harmful Actions
please reconsider your actions on Wikipedia. Primarily refusing to listen to a third opinion (Talk:Signaling System 7), littering another user's talk page with warnings (talk) without engaging in proper dialogue with the user and the further continuation of time wasting actions, such as creating false claims of sock puppetry (here). In short please consider stopping the bullying tactics. Leedryburgh (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lee,


 * I did not refuse to listen to a third opinion, I just don't wholly agree with it (as is my right).
 * The warnings placed on your user page by me were for the specific comments referenced. When you added link spam, I warned you to that effect.  When you attacked me personally, I warned you to that effect.  When you claimed that my actions were harmful to Wikipedia, I warned you to assume good faith.  Each warning is for a separate instance.  If it appears to be littered it is because there were many separate instances.
 * I am permitted by Wikipedia policy to report suspected sock puppetry.


 * None of these are bullying: in fact two of the three warnings applied to your talk page were intended to warn you to stop bullying me.


 * I would apply another warning about personal attacks and assuming good faith to your talk page for these remarks here were it not that you have already been given the highest level of warning for both these behaviours. — Dgtsyb (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is evident here Talk:Signaling System 7 that you are the originating source of personal attacks and have been told by others to assume good faith. Leedryburgh (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/Leedryburgh
Please see my recent comments. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Dgtsyb. I have proposed how this report should be closed (see my comment at the bottom of the sockpuppet report). Please let me know if you object; otherwise I will go ahead and close it. I assume you are OK with the compromise that allowed linking to Leedryburgh's book provided it was reformatted to get rid of the ads. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Although reformatting to get rid of ads has not been done yet, please go ahead and close the sock puppetry case. Any further action will likely either be taken under a spam report or under a new sock puppet report with fresh evidence.  Thank you for your comments. — Dgtsyb (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Need clarification
Can I know why did you label this article under spam? If it is the support links that seems questionable to you, I am removing them. Sibi_antony (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, primarily the External Links, but also consider that there is a list of customers in the article which goes against WP:EL item 14. — Dgtsyb (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Megaconference"
A page you created, Megaconference, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for companies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Katanada (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please delete speedily. The information was moved from H.323 where it did not belong either. Dgtsyb (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification w/regards SS7 links
Can you explain to me what was meant by this on the SS7 talk page:

"Leedryburgh: Ok, so its the 1-58705-040-4 (2004) edition. Good. That's the one I cited. I don't think the banners are so obnoxious: at least on the head page of the Jun 18, 2008 version. When Ludwigs2 and the others are agreeable, just add the site (or I will add it for you) to the url and accessdate tags of the 2004 citation. Please feel free to include citations from the book by page number to any parts of either article needing citations. Regarding PDF, I believe Wikipedia policy prefers HTML over PDF or other rich-media content, particularly where one is a faithful representation of the other. Ludwigs2, I only meant to point out that there were several other comments that should be addressed. — Dgtsyb (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)"

I can read it in three different ways. The most favourable is i can leave the site as is ss7-training.net and link to it with the smaller headers without objection from you? Leedryburgh (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:TinucherianBot
--  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 12:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)