User talk:JanCeuleers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Linkbit commercial link

ad99sl 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)

You recently deleted a link to Linkbit Free Online Protocol Decoder on the basis that the link points to a "commercial page". Have you checked what the link points to? This is the_only_free_working_protocol_decoder_ on the Internet. No registration is required to use it. Try it, and tell me that this is not an educational, let alone useful, tool. If you are ultimately against any links pointing to commercial entities, why not to clean the whole "Products" category on the "SS7" page, and all other "commercial" links on other pages? All I'm asking for is a second look at our link on its own merits.

The member below was apparently persuaded by our arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluezy

I'd really like to hear your response, please.

Linkbit's protocol decoder may be free and educational (which I don't dispute), but clearly it is a marketing exercise on Linkbit's part. They are not altruistic.

Note that this is not the only free protocol decoder on the internet. Anyone can download and install wireshark/ethereal, tcpdump, etc. That's what I use on a daily basis. JanCeuleers 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and, the linkbit links are being added by a Linkbit employee:

Search results for: 63.204.19.188

SBC Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80 (NET-63-192-0-0-1) 63.192.0.0 - 63.207.255.255

Linkbit Inc SBC063204019184031006 (NET-63-204-19-184-1) 63.204.19.184 - 63.204.19.191

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-11-22 19:10

JanCeuleers 11:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked what the link points to? Or simply cleared it because it was placed there by linkbit employer? I'm also using ethereal on daily basis, but this ___online___ tool is very different (and also usefull in it's own way). Certainly it's a marketing exercise and not an altruistic effort that makes this tool available online, but does it need to be altruistic ??? who cares if it's altruistic or not if Wiki community could benefit from this tool ?

User:m_i_t_r_a 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What can I say? Neither I nor, contrary to ad99sl's assertion above) User:Bluezy, have been convinced. If someone wants an online protocol analyser then all they have to do is search for it. The Linkbit-one is the first non-sponsored hit on Google for "online protocol analyzer". JanCeuleers 11:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand this. I don't see any reply from User:Bruezy. The fact that linkbit tool is easy to find on google using __that exact__ searchphrase??? I think that's irrelevant. You are not convinced... Ok. Please explain. I value your opinion, but up to now you've only said "not altruistic, put by linkbit employer"... that's not really relevant.

It's the relevancy/usefulness/educational value of the information itself decides wherever this information is to stay. And not who put it there, why put there, altruist or not, or so.

I can see why one can dislike 'Linkbit online decoder' links with this 'Linkbit' as the first word with big letters... looks like ad... maybe simply removing 'Linkbit' word will be enough to make this link look more friendly?

BTW, you've also removed several links with line trace log examples. Like this link QSIG trace log from this page QSIG. I can see that on some pages (i.e. ISDN) we have such trace examples embedded in the article! Is it not nice to have an example of decoded real-line exchange linked to the article?

User:m_i_t_r_a 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Listen, to me contributing to Wikipedia is a hobby, whereas for you lot it seems to be a professional (and commercial) undertaking. I have limited patience in debating this with you.

My point on User:Bluezy is that there is a similar discussion to this-one on his Talk page (linked to above) which was misrepresented by ad99sl as having resulted in the former being convinced that the linkbit.com links are OK. They are not, and after discussion User:Bluezy appears to continue to hold that opinion.

If you wish to contribute traces to articles then you can do so without linking to a commercial website. JanCeuleers 12:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reply from User:Bluezy. If you are ultimately against any links pointing to commercial entities, why not to clean the whole "Products" category on the SS7 page, and all other "commercial" links on other pages? Certainly these can be found by google. And a way less relevant than 'free web-based decoder tool' links, or decoded traces links.

Anyway, let's try to find some way around... Maybe it shouldn't be in the 'External links'? Because if we have 'External links' in the article - everyone tries to add some irrelevant commercial ads there. Maybe create a separate wiki article with examples and put it in 'See Also'? Or create a paragraph like: 'Binary Encoding' and link example+decoder inside?

User:m_i_t_r_a 26 November 2006

I continue to hold the opinion that the Linkbit protocol analyser links are inappropriate. As I said, if you wish to make an altruistic contribution to the community, then please feel free to contribute to the articles themselves. Using Wikipedia in order to coax traffic onto your own site and in order to improve your search engine relevance ratings is not appropriate. This closes the discussion as far as I am concerned. JanCeuleers 12:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Links in question are relevant, educational and useful. Links to commercial website are welcome if they are relevant. That's all that matters. And please stop talking about altruism and google ;).

User:m_i_t_r_a 27 November 2006

"Links to commercial websites are welcome if they are relevant": I agree that the information being linked to is relevant, educational and useful. However, I don't agree that the most appropriate way of making this information available to Wikipedia readers is to link to a commercial website, but rather to include the information directly on Wikipedia itself. If you were to do that, then this would demonstrate that you are about contributing something to the community, rather than about personal or corporate gain. JanCeuleers 07:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to SIGTRAN (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just revert again, the bot won't revert twice in a row. -- Tawker 17:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)