User talk:Calltech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Calltech, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ghewgill 03:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab Case: 2006-10-01 Call centre

Your Mediation Cabal case, 2006-10-01 Call centre has been opened, though as of this writing a mediator has not yet selected the case. If you wish to stop by the 2006-10-01 Call centre page and add more and specific information to assist the mediator in understanding the situation, please feel free to do so in the proper sections. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Assistant

Calltech, as you know, external links are allowed. Wikipedia also encourages edits, but discourages back and forth disagreements, interference, and "wars". Regarding the Medical Assistant links, neither external linked website is commercial. If anything, there ARE commercial links RIGHT NOW in the medical assistant article itself, that you have tolerated from the beginning, such as the one to the AAMA. AMAA IS a business. Medical Assistant Net (hyperlink removed) and MA Exam Help at (hyperlink removed), are NOT.

Let's settle this once and for all in a fair manner. What is your definition of a commercial site? And then let's take it from there to see which links belong, and which ones don't. I am adamant about this... as nobody actually OWNS the article.

Danni R.

Hi Danni and thanks for adding a discussion rather than just reverting your links. Here is where Wikipedia defines the do's don't of adding external links [Wikipedia:External links].

Specifically, Wikipedia discourages links to: "A page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important and difficult objective at Wikipedia. If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link."

That is why I recommended getting a editorial consensus, or RFc, which lets the community comment on whether or not links should be added. In general, once other editors remove a link, it is difficult to get it overidden by Wikipedia Admin, especially if the link was added to one's own site without posting a notice on the article talk page. I'm sure you can appreciate what Wikipedia would become if everyone started adding links to their own sites or to sites promoting themselves and their services. This is probably the number one contention among Wikipedia contributors and editors. Calltech 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! It was a worthwhile learning experience for me. Didn't turn out as originally intended, but well worth going through the pains. I have always enjoyed and supported Wikipedia and will continue to do so. I know you feel the same. Keep up the good work. And thanks for the support to me, other fellow Wikipedian, the general public, and the world. --Danni R. 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: voip-info.org link removal

I just thought you removed it because it was broken, I didn't even bother to read over it. BJ^Talk 18:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glacier

Apologies for the tone of my Edit Summary on Glacier (the edit where I put the Ext Link back that refers to another encyclopedia). It came out as unfriendly but was not meant to be. I should not have used the word "again". Sorry! - Adrian Pingstone 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look here. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 09:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Hey, thanks for the heads up, appreciate the feedback - I'm new and didnt realize how Wikipedia worked... I'll go get to know the editors on the relevant talk pages.Davesarchive 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You will probably want to comment at Wikipedia talk:External links#Help sought at .5B.5BVoiceXML.5D.5D. I've done my best to represent your position accurately, but I may have it wrong, or you may want to elaborate. - Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asterisk

Sorry about that random IP readding the external links back, he is going all over Wikipedia and reverting anything I changed lately or agree with it seems. I assume he knows nothing about Asterisk and is just trying to piss me off. BJ^Talk 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I did look through the history of this IP and noticed some of his comments to that effect. Keep up the good work on WP! Calltech 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asterisk PBX

Please provide justification why a link to the GNU Bayonne and sipX pages under "see also" are appropriate while links to other such pages such as Freeswitch and Yate are not. Likewise, why is a link to trixbox page appropriate while a link to the FreePBX page is not, especially considering that FreePBX is a component of trixbox.

If you are holding the view that "see also" should not contain anything that is not strictly an Asterisk distribution or an Asterisk add-on, a view which I would disagree with and which is not common practise on Wikipedia looking at other pages, then at the very least you would have to also propose a removal of Bayonne and sipX. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stswp (talk • contribs) 12:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Please review my comments on your talk page. Lets keep the discussion over there rather than going back and forth between our talk pages. Calltech 12:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asterisk distributions

I think we should create a Asterisk distributions or List of Asterisk distributions and merge all articles into it (e.g. Trixbox) because I don't think we need a page for the 3-5 notable distributions. What do you think about this? BJ^Talk 21:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A list sounds like a good idea. There are several that simply don't meet the notability criteria for their own article. Calltech 22:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think the name for the new article should be? BJ^Talk 22:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably List of Asterisk PBX distributions. Calltech 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have started List of Asterisk PBX distributions, it still needs lots of layout changes and to include a few more distributions. I have also started a AfD for trixbox here as I have merged it already. BJ^Talk 22:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wp sp

you left me a note which i saw before someone deleted. if pos could you tell me where the policy on self links etc is? I have read wp:el but i think that's not policy yet. I am feeling pangs of guilt about 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection which was pre discussed in wp space, and when afd kept it but still is a bit "me myself i". ps sorry for no caps baby has my other hand at present. --BozMo talk 08:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi BozMo, training a future wiki, eh :-)! Here's a few links to the old WP:ELs.

January, 2005 [1] Back then, pretty simple guideline with no section headings - "Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged"

January, 2006 [2] Under heading What Should Not Be Linked To - "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article."

September, 2006 [3] Under heading Links normally to be avoided - "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.". This was pretty much left intact until the recent proposed changes which actually puts this under its own heading now.

December, 2006 WP:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest Current, under the heading Advertising and conflicts of interest - "Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to."

Thanks again for your comments. I agree that the mass reverting of all links is probably not in order here, but I think the author of this site needs to refrain from continuing this process of just linking and his most recent edits were just that. I think he had his hand slapped by two other editors - perhaps harshly, but hopefully this simple link posting will stop.

Went ahead and added back our comments here WT:WPSPAM - Calltech 11:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, agree about cut the knots. I feel a bit less guilty given the other remarks. I think getting WP:EL official and also some spam guidelines official would help. I think my most recent run of criminality may have been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.john-leech-archive.org.uk back in early 2005 but about half the links were added by other people and I think they are probably mainly legit. --BozMo talk 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just re-read the posts here and on the WPSPAM and wanted to clarify my statement

"I believe there has been a guideline against links to your own site for at least a year (went back into history)."

I was being figurative with the word "your" and in no way was referring to any of your links and apologize if it appeared that way. I was smiling at your "guilt" comments. BTW, I was very impressed with 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection! Calltech 12:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :)--BozMo talk 12:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mbinu message (moved from my user page)

This is about the following message:

Mbinu, please review WP:EL before adding any more links to your articles. What you are doing is considered link spamming. Calltech 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know much about editing on it. So if I am doing this wrong, I apologize beforehand. I believe this message was about the Stream Processor external link. I have seen the call for help on that page, but don't have the time to write stuff at the moment. The book chapter I linked to is something I wrote last year and I think it is a comprehensive introduction to the topic. I was a postdoc with the Stanford group that worked on stream processors. So I think I can vouch that the article itself summarizes the Stanford and MIT work honestly.

Still spam?

02:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Mbinu

Let's continue discussion in one place on your talk page where this was originally posted. No need to make entries on both Talk pages. I'll watch for any postings there. Calltech 04:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VLIW Article

This is "Mbinu" again.

>When you are simply adding links to the same website, particularly when it's to one you own or >maintain, it is considered promotion and that is how WP defines link spamming.

The link on the VLIW article was not added by me. It was added years ago by someone else. All my pages have moved from the cs.utah.edu domain to the siliconintelligence.com domain because the University of Utah is shutting down alumni accounts. I thought I was doing Wikipedia a little service by updating that link. But you had to go and revert that too. None of this is my original research, just surveys I wrote which took months of reading and understanding years of other peoples research. So I don't have any motivation to get self citations or something. I was just trying to help.

The new address for that document is ~~link~~ (struck because its already in the history and I don't want the link here). If you should care to keep it that is. The cs.utah.edu redirection will stop working any day now.

See you again in a few years when I have the time to update my web pages!

18:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)~

Mbinu, here is the specific guideline Advertising and conflicts of interest in WP:EL

"Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to.

If it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines."

This link as well as several others added during the last few days to this same website constitutes conflict of interest. Also, the fact that the articles now are surrounded by Adsense adds on your website presents even further WP:COI under Financial Conflict Of Interest. Calltech 12:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Adsense exists on some pages because the state of Utah is not paying my bandwidth fees now. I am.

The link to www.cs.utah.edu/~mbinu/coursework/... will merely redirect you to my siliconintelligence.com domain. I have removed that link from the VLIW article -- though the link there existed for years.

I do not want to receive any more traffic from Wikipedia or pay bandwidth charges for that and on top of that deal with unreasonable types. So consider this a request to never link from wikipedia to any of my content. Thanks and Good Bye!

[edit] Re:WP:EL

Hi. I'm sorry you didn't like the reason I gave for removing your addition to the guideline. I actually have several concerns with it. First, as I noted, nobody commented on your suggestion on the talk page. A lack of discussion should not be mistaken for an endorsement or consensus.

Also, the wording of your clause was broad enough as to make it nearly opaque to most contributors. The entire guideline was recently rewritten to simplify it and cut back on the instruction creep that had made its way in. Everybody has their own concerns, but each one was a bullet point, the guideline would be too long to be of use. The external links rules must walk the delicate line of maintaining simplicity, flexibility, and robustness. If your concern is over unreliable websites and conflicts of interest, I feel that the existing guidelines already address the issue sufficiently. - EurekaLott 16:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and I appreciate your response, EurekaLott. I stated in my "Edit summary" that I had placed a comment on the talk page over a week ago because I wanted to make it clear that this was not a knee jerk addition WP:BRD and that I had looked for comments. No assumption on my part that there was a consensus nor (by itself) should it be a justification for removal.

The second part of your comment, however, is what I was looking for. As I mentioned, I've watched the recent brawl over WP EL guidelines and didn't like the addition/revert process. I thought the arguments pro/con on Youtube and other self-publishing websites seriously exposed a hole in WP guidelines, especially since WP is cut and dry when it comes to linking to commercial websites as I mentioned on your talk page. No COI determination is required nor reliable source verification. It simply says avoid "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." Yet the guidelines don't say avoid links to self-publishing websites with the same content. Doesn't make sense to me and wanted to let you know my thoughts. Again, thanks for your comments. Calltech 19:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EoE links

Hi, I though I should explain why I've (BOLDly) readded a handful of links to EoE articles that you removed. I've looked at the EoE articles for these topics, and they all seem to add more information than we have in the corresponding Wikipedia article. That's just the sort of resource we'd normally provide for readers in an External links section, so I think it's fine to link in these cases. — Matt Crypto 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Calltech 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BONA

I've expanded the article & made some comments on the Spam December archive page.DGG 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and I left a message on the article talk page as well. Calltech 18:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Oyster

Hi there. The only reason Eastern oyster's on my watchlist is because I added a citation to it about it being Connecticut's state shellfish, so I consider myself a neutral party. When your edit to the page came up I was surprised to see that you think that the University of California Digital Library is a spam site. It seems pretty legit to me. You might have an argument about accessibility to the paper per WP:EL, but I really don't think it qualifies as spam. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 21:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. Your explanation makes good sense. I know it's probably too late in this instance, but it might save trouble to be more clear as to what you're doing in the edit summary. Maybe something like, "Rv persistent spam linking, see <user x>'s <talk page> & <contributions>." I was tempted to simply revert rather than bring it up to you on your talk page; and I imagine a number of editors did simply revert what seemed like the removal of a legitimate external link. Anyway, sorry to have troubled you. Have a great day! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hundreds_of_links..._to_a_good_site as there does not seem to be agreement as to whether these links should have been removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Calltech 00:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air Force Pararescue

Cool, thanks for the memo. --Gpohara 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: chargeback article

You call it spam but I have added valid and legitimate articles whereas the article I removed you put back. I can understand if you want to keep this article to yourself but the reality is the link I added much in fact much higher in value than the link you added back. Stop removing my valid submissions.

 You have the wrong user.  Check the article's history. Your contributions are spam,
 however, because you continuously are adding the same link to multiple articles and
 because the link points to a forum website requiring registration and probably one
 you are affiliated with. Calltech 02:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's surprising how such a great place like Wikipedia could have such issues like this. The link added as you stated spam was a valid link that represented the type of quality that Wikipedia looks for. What gives you the right to displace valid and otherwise relevant links that are in no way spam. I guess it takes all kinds.

What gives me (and any other editor) the right is the WP:EL guidelines. Don't take it personally. If you think your links are valuable, put an entry in the article's Talk page and let another, unbiased editor add it. If others feel like you that it is a valuable resource, it can be added in that manner. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~). Calltech 13:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Apparently you're a web programmer so you know if an e-com article is good or bad, I think the articles on itoctopus.com are all good, including the ones on job interviews, project management, and e-com, not because I wrote them myself, but because people tell me that. The thing started when I wrote, in my opinion, a very good chargeback article and I added the link to the chargeback page. My opinion about the link if that it's good, it stays, if it's bad, it's removed by an unbiased editor. This link, unlike all the others was removed (btw, the link remained for all my other articles for a long time (months), until you deleted all of them). I investigated the person that removed my link to see if he's unbiased, and it he seemed to be the person owning the website that has the only link on that page http://www.merchant-account-services.org (John Conde). Feeling that my link was dishonestly removed by an unbiased editor, I replaced his link with my link telling him the following: "If you keep on removing the link I added I will keep on removing yours. Apparently you're a link farmer (I've looked at your other "contributions") and thus you have no right whatsoever. Persisting on doing so I *will* report you and ask for all your links to be removed."

That was his response: "Please do not vandalize wikipedia entries. Other editors have also removed your content. If you are here to contribute why not sign up and use a name instead of your IP?"

I don't see what I did as vandalism, maybe I went over the edge a bit with my reaction, but this was based on his action. Apparently, ever since all the links (that were there for months) were removed, stating that I'm link spamming (while in reality I had only about 8 links). I know there are rules for adding external links, yet I think my links are really good, look at the one for the CVV for example, the CVV page never had an external link and this link fully explained the benefit and the advantage over the AVS. I don't have a lot of people I know in wikipedia so that I can get admin status to add/remove links the way I want. I just want to be fair and treated fairly.

Thanks and I really hope that you look further into this matter. 65.94.124.188 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page here User talk:70.55.141.129.

Thanks for your quick answer, the reason I added the article on CVV and AVS is that it's related to both. Thanks again 69.159.186.113 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Was trying to prevent spam on this article. Didn't know what else to do than put the spam notices on the article. Is there another option? Joekucker| 15:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links on MySQL

Hello. Thank you for cleaning up external links on the MySQL article, but please note that footnote-linked sources are not governed by the WP:EL guideline as long as they are considered reliable sources per the attribution policy. In particular, I would like to point out this edit. Have a nice day. -- intgr 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you deleting SOME Links?

Dear Calltech:

I love Wikipedia would like to understand how to participate. I am not sure if this is the right place to post a question to you, but here goes.

Encyclopedias use thousands of examples that reference organizations or companies as references for users to better understand a subject. In addition to the Wikipedia guidelines you cite, do you have any other rules that would help contributers avoid your deletions?

Sincerely, Michael

Here is a few of many Wikipedia company examples:

ONE

Courier companies are a spin-off from freight forwarders. There are various types of courier companies, such as airfreight courier companies (FedEx, Skynet, Crossflight) or road couriers (Circle Express).

TWO

Companies identified The list of eighteen companies identified as visionary:

3M, American Express,

Boeing,

Citicorp (now Citigroup),

Disney,

Ford,

General Electric,

Hewlett Packard,

IBM,

Johnson & Johnson,

Marriott,

Merck,

Motorola,

Nordstrom,

Philip Morris (now Altria),

Proctor & Gamble,

Sony, and

Wal*Mart.

THREE

"Bad Company" is a song from Bad Company's album Bad Company. It is notable as one of the few songs, where the artist, album and song names are the same. Other examples include Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrybin (talk • contribs).

[edit] List of SIP software

Good job with the links! --Ronz 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Your user page notes that attended the USAFA, so please add your name to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by military branch. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Value or Injury?

Dear Calltech, I am sorry about deleting your page. I will not do that again. I did not know how else to prompt you to answer. Obviously, you misunderstood because you thought you had already answered my question, when you did not.

When you delete content and call people vandals without helping others by answering their questions on your talk page it looks like you are not neutral, and do not represent the true spirit of Wikipedia. Is this true? This makes it very difficult to understand what good reasons you have for these actions.

From reading other peoples responses, on one side, it seems to provoke and push away many excellent contributors. On the other side, it looks like you may have done a good job because of some glory (The Editor's Barnstar) and recognition (Satori Son).

As a whole, do those reviews sound like your actions genuinely represent the true intent of Wikipedia? Or do they demonstrate an example that injures Wikipedia and leave the community in a poor state?

I feel like a little more kindness and conservative editing would be better for Wikipedia and everyone. I believe this is not easy. Nevertheless, I wonder if you believe this would improve the value of Wikipedia? Sincerely, --Mrybin 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Problem

I'm glad you added your name in. I will hopefully be joining the military when I go to college (USMA or ROTC at Berkeley) in July or August. How was USAFA? =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I know someone that goes to USAFA from my high school. She said the math and engineering courses are extremely difficult (not to mention the physical aspect of the service academies), but I think she's surviving. That's what kind of scares me about the USMA, since I'll probably do very poorly in math. Berkeley seems easier (since my major will be psychology and there are no required engineering classes), but I'll be stuck with lots of anti-war kids that will undoubtedly bag on the ROTC kids. ;) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: GPeriodic

Yes I experienced that same problem. I was going to check on another computer in case it was a browser error on mine, but as it didn't work for you, I'll remove it. I was not the one who originally included the link, I just made some edits to the page. -- Lima Golf ^Talk ^| ^{Contributions} 05:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you click continue, it does link to a webpage, but as a security warning is issued, I think its prudent that the link be removed. -- Lima Golf ^Talk ^| ^{Contributions} 05:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asterisk link removal

You removed the voip-info.org link from Asterisk (PBX), I'm not sure if thats what you meant to do or only remove the ohter link. I think that that link is quite important and usefull, you reference WP:EL as the reason, can you please quote which part of WP:EL has to do with removing that link? Thank you.--Shmaltz 02:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I now see why, it has to do with item 12 here. My mistake, disregard my comment above. Thank you--Shmaltz 02:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CallWeaver removal

The CallWeaver removal stuff is out of bounds. The project has been going on for two years, and it is active indeed. You have commented on my person in the project, and I have accidently registerd myself twice at wikipedia, as Rkarlsba and Royk. Please remove the former. As you may see from the logs, that registration was not made during the callweaver dispute, but a year before that or more. Please do not remove the CallWeaver entry. That project has lots of people, and although it hasn't got too much press yet, it will in time

roy RoyK 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint Wording

Your comment on Wikipedia Spam page includes the following sentence -

Most of the EL's she's added have already been removed but on Inter-Asterisk eXchange‎, she has solicited another WP user User:Apankrat to assist her and we are currently at the 3RR level.

It is inaccurate to the point of being misleading as it implies that my initial edit was solicited. As you are well aware, it is simply not true. Please consider wording your complaints more carefully. Thank you. Alex Pankratov 05:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I clarified the comment to accurately reflect the events as they occured. Her open solicitation on the article talk page resulted in your (re)adding the link, as supported by your inline comment. She did not directly solicit the first link addition, but did so for subsequent link requests. Calltech 13:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 21:32 14 August 2007 (GMT).

[edit] FreeSWITCH advert tagging

The FreeSWITCH™ article keeps getting tagged as an advert and it clearly isn't. It talks about an Open Source voip project. I see that you also have requested removal of Call Weaver and contributed to Asterisk and other project articles. You are clearly not showing objectivity if you favor one project over another. I would accept recommendations on why you feel this is an advert, this entire article was rewritten by a third party back in july and I feel its very neutral. If this is considered and Advert then the one for Asterisk PBX should be also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briankwest (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look closely, you'll also see that I had the Digium article removed as well (tagged as advertisement and subsequently merged into Asterisk), so please don't suggest bias here. If an article is written such that it appears to be promoting a product or a project, it should be tagged as an advertisement until its re-written in a neutral fashion. FreeSWITCH is still written in this fashion. If you feel Asterisk is written as such, feel free to tag it as well. Calltech 14:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont feel like tagging other projects because I am confident in who I am as a person. Although the types of things that you have done based on this page does seem to lend a bit of bias towards asterisk considering that was the template used for the FreeSWITCH™ page. If you feel one is and the two pages were written similarly then both should be. Although you may have removed the commercial components of asterisk, you dont seem to feel the same way about asterisk as you do to competitors, such as removing the FreeSWITCH™ link on the asterisk page. So there is a pattern of bias in this issue. 86.92.134.171 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)anonymous

I strongly suggest that you read the guidelines for WP before posting comments such as the ones above, particularly WP:NPA. Abusive comments do not win consensus nor support, are not tolerated, and are a sure path to getting your editing privileges revoked along with the articles you are promoting.

I suggest you stop making threats you cant back up. You arent special you dont have the ability to ban me. You do go around getting any non-asterisk project delisted though. Callweaver and OpenSER were both delisted based on your activities. Others have complaned about you removing links to other projects. Wouldnt the same guidelines apply to you where you are obviously not an unbiased 3rd party but strongly trying to ensure that pages that do VoIP/telphony that arent asterisk removed be against some policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Calltech I want you to review the comments I made on the spam entry you made about me. I would like you to retract those comments ASAP as you made comments that reflect badly on me and that are false. I am not the person from ip 86.92.134.171. Its a defamation of charater directed at me and the FreeSWITCH project. As I said the three core developers including me are not allowed to post on Wikipedia as we have made a policy internally to never do so. We let the community do the writing as I already know its a Conflict of Interest for me or anyone directly involved with the project to post anything because we can't provide the objectivity needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briankwest (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments 100% and the dialog from this talk page section demonstrate the clear association of your User ID with the anon. Calltech 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a reasonable compromise? Before I go any further, just let me state for the record that I would very much like to see this situation resolved peaceably. If I am overstepping any boundaries then please let me know, and I will step back. With that said, let's continue: I think it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Brian K. West and Bret McDanel (Trixter) are two different people living on two different continents. They've been extremely active on the Asterisk users mailing list over the past 4+ years. There simply is no reason to believe that one person is responsible for nearly 2500 different posts to that list under two different names for the past 4 years. That being said, there is still the issue of who said what to Calltech. I can see why there is confusion about Brian possibly being the anonymous poster from 86.92.134.171 - the anonymous poster did speak in first person in what would seem like a direct response to a message directed specifically to Brian, making it seem like the anonymous poster was Brian himself. Calltech drew the conclusion that Brian and the anonymous poster were the same person. Given the available information at the time of the inference it was a reasonable conclusion. Unfortunately it just happened not to be correct. Calltech, if you'd be willing to consider the possibility that there are indeed two different people here, Brian and Bret, that would make a lot of people in the OSS telephony community breath a little easier. I'm sure either or both of them would be willing to have a direct conversation or even a conference call with all parties, just to make sure that everyone knows that there are living, breathing persons behind the electronic monikers we all use. Bret, if you made personal attacks against Calltech, would you be willing to apologize for those? Please at least be willing to consider it. Brian, I don't see where you did anything other than express your viewpoint and why you felt that way and then got dragged into a heated discussion that you really didn't start. Would you be willing just to let it go and move on? That, too, would make a lot of us breath easier. In the end I'd like to see all three of you shake hands, as it were, and move forward. We still have the issue of what should be posted on WP and I'd like to see energy directed there. Last thing: any of you have explicit permission to contact me at my place of employment. In the US you can call toll-free 800-540-9011. Sorry Bret, we don't have a toll-free number that works outside of North America. You can still call me at 559-733-7550. I am extension 1160. I appreciate your willingness to consider my proposition. I will respect whatever decisions you make and I will not pass judgment on any of you. You have my word. Michael S. Collins 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I appreciate your efforts here and Trixter admitted being the anonymous posted on the Talk:FreeSWITCH and I consider that issue resolved. I believe I have made comments on all of the given talk pages of his admission, but also have expressed displeasure in users who have posted using multiple identities because of resulting confusion and appearance of deception, specifically by Trixter. Calltech 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for listening. I'm glad this is settled. Michael S. Collins 08:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Calltech I AM not the anon person... I can tell you that Trixter and the anon person are ONE IN THE same and he will not own up to it. I request you withdraw your comments ASAP about me. Briankwest 02:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Brian, I am now fully aware that you are not the anonymous poster. As I mentioned above, Trixter did own up to it. Calltech 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Regarding the article is-phone, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it is not an advert but is an expandable stub. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:AFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Article was removed through AfD by Admin. Thanks. Calltech 16:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for following up to let me know where you are in the process. Sorry I could not get to it right away when you messaged me. Best,Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 19:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a breather

Hello,

I've been taking a look at the dispute surrounding FreeSWITCH. I appreciate the work you're doing in trying to ensure that it remains neutral and that editors with a conflict of interest are not allowed to take over the article. However, in doing so, you've become quite rude and are now probably doing more harm than good. This is especially true in the case of your thread on WT:WPSPAM. Please consider taking a break from editing this article, and when you return, keep in mind the basic ideas of assuming good faith, being civil, etc. Other people will watch the article to try to keep it neutral, and Wikipedia won't fail if the article isn't immediately perfect. Taking a small break will hopefully allow you to focus on the positive when you return.

Thanks! :) kmccoy (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct - I got too wrapped up in this issue and lost objectivity and will definitely be taking a break here. Calltech 11:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text2it link

Hi Calltech,

I wanted to put the "hangon" tag on the Text2it article but it seems to have already been deleted. I added back some basic content after I noticed it had been deleted the first time which was admittedly sparse. However, I don't see the difference between the Text2it content and other similar postings such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Call or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jajah.

I noticed that your comment for the original removal was "rm non-notables" - so it was not that the original content was not comparable to other material in this category, it is that in your opinion Text2it is not notable enough to be included.

If you disagree on my statement on how the original content compares to similar topics, I would be very happy to make modifications you suggest.

I look forward to your opinion.

Udic (talk)udic —Preceding comment was added at 03:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text2it removal

Hi Calltech. I agree that the content I put back after the original was removed was not as complete as it should have been, but I fully intended to replace the original content gradually - perhaps there is an easier way to restore the original content? As for notability, thanks for the link. According to the link you provided "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources." Below are just a few such references. So, if you compare the original content to those of similar Wikipedia articles, and follow the notability guidelines as described above, I don't see why the article should be deleted. Once again, I welcome your thoughts on the subject so I can begin restoring the content. http://businessvoip.tmcnet.com/topics/applications/articles/7539-text2it-voip-solution-bridge-mobile-landline-gap.htm http://www.hotelcondoresort.com/2007/05/23/text2it-enables-dophin-hotel-to-offer-guests-easy-and-affordable-long-distance/ http://www.telappliant.com/news/18170223/VoIP+used+to+transfer+between+landline+and+mobile/ http://voip-buzz.com/2007/06/06/ http://forum.rebtel.com/wordpress/2007/04/24/mobile-operators-lock-voip/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (Udic (talk)udic]) 21:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conference calling removal

I am confused as to why you are removing what I've added to the Conference Call entry. If you go back and read what I put in, I carefully referenced an article about a legal matter between Qwest and FreeConferenceCall.com. I don't see how this is commercial content. I believe it is good and useful for Wikipedia to have information about this dispute in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanvesuvio (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Dmoz

Hello. I see your vote at the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_15#Template:Dmoz. I agree with you.

Best regards, nejron (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] yor voice reference

Hi, i tried to be neutral in the writing. let me know how can i make it better? Voip4ever (talk) 01:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Article appeared to be nothing more than a promotion for this organization. No reliable sources per WP:RS cited as references that show this organization is noteworthy (in WP terms) over the millions of other companies and organizations that want to appear in WP but don't meet WP requirements. Calltech (talk) 11:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conference Call

Calltech: Should I have created an Internal Links section at the bottom of the article to include the providers raher than adding them directly into the body of the content I added?

Thanks!

MillionEric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.125.29.166 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Listing commercial providers in this article appears like spamming and should be avoided on WP WP:EL. Calltech (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlike, AT&T, MCI, etc. the companies do not have their own individual articles to link to. I did run multiple searches on this niche using Google, Yahoo, and MSN, then compared the top results and found the mentioned companies to consistently show up. I looked for other business longevity metrics, like domain registrant information and these companies have been around for many years. Can you suggest how an editor would mention such new companies in an evolving niche? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.125.29.166 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Place a comment on the article's discussion page and let other editors make that judgement about whether listing these commercial companies adds to the article. Because these companies are small (not notable in WP terminology) and don't have articles and because they are commercial will raise red flags with most editors that this is an attempt to get attention to these companies rather than presenting a neutral article about Conference calls. Also, WP is not a list of websites or providers of products or services. Please read WP:NOT, WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Thanks. Calltech (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Calltech, thank you very much. I will heed your advice moving forward. I appreciate that you've explained this in a friendly manner--I've seen a few fairly rude responses from guides/editors in passing (granted they probably deserve the right to get a bit grumpy at times). 66.125.29.166 (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conference Call / "Free"

I removed the "Free" part from the section on Conference calls. This is because you systematically remove any reference to US Free Conference vendors. The article, in fact, has zero mention of free conference calling whatsoever. So, the "Free" in the title is misleading.

Also, I think it's odd that you keep removing these links. Do you work for a paid conference call company or something? Can we find a link or links that are acceptable to you that will inform people about free conference calling? There are several vendors out there, and numerous articles about them. I thought TechCrunch would be considered a valid reference, and non promotional, but obviously not.

As it stands, I believe you are (possibly purposely) preventing readers from finding out about free conference calling in the US. I cannot understand why. Let's fix this!

Suggestion: Can we add a topic called "Free Conference Calling" and put into that some mention of some articles regarding the topic -- only from high quality publishers naturally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.21.227 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a forum to promote individual companies and the references you cited do just that WP:NOT. If you notice there is no mention of ANY conference call companies in this article for this very reason. Calltech (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok well then can we add a sentence simply telling people such alternatives exist? Suggestion:

Several vendors in the US now offer free conference calling services. Such services generally require users to dial a long-distance phone number to be connected to their conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.103.48.174 (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)