User talk:Stswp

OpenPBX by Voicetronix

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article OpenPBX by Voicetronix, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:OpenPBX by Voicetronix. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. BJ^Talk 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Asterisk PBX links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Calltech 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Response

None of the links I have added are inappropriate. They are all balanced since they are of EXACTLY THE SAME NATURE as the links which have been already in place in the respective sections.

It is instead inappropriate to only present a one or two links to a particular page while links to other pages of the exact same nature are removed. The removal of such links represents a bias and is thereofre unbalanced. In fact, the removal of only certain such links and not all of them would represent SPAM.

Either remove all links or none. Don't become an instrument of advertising for a particular software by suppressing links to pages describing another software of the same category.

thank you.

Thanks for your comments and please do not take any of the following suggestions or actions by others here personally. We are all volunteers and trying to make WP as encyclopedic as possible. Please review WP:EL and WP:NOT#SOAP, specifically WP is not a medium for promotion nor advertising. Your article creation for OpenPBX.org and cross promotion on other WP articles and now your aggressive responses indicate such. I am placing a WP:AfD on the new article to open a discussion on the merits of this article. If it passes, then great - continue on. But until then, please refrain from adding internal links. Regarding Asterisk PBX, if you wish to add external links to this article, please add a comment on its talk page and gain consensus first. This article was recently cleaned of these types of links. That is WP's preferred process whenever there is a dispute. Don't get into an edit war. Don't move links (internal and external) links around (putting your link first) and don't put promotional tags of WP links - its a red flag that you are promoting WP:SPAM.

Also, please sign your post here and elsewhere using 4 tilde's. Thanks again for contributing. Calltech 13:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Response

thanks for your response.

As for link positions, I always maintain strict alphabetical order on every wiki page I have been working on, Wikipedia or elsewhere.

I do understand that a link section such as "see also" or "external links" can become too crowded and a way to reduce the number of entries is then desirable. However, if this is the motive, then I suggest for the sake of balance that all links are removed which are not strictly Asterisk add-ons, documentation about Asterisk, books about Asterisk, etc. which means that the links to the Bayonne and sipX page should then be removed as well.

However, I suggest that many visitors to the Asterisk page will be interested to see what other similar open source software packages are available and therefore internal links to such alternatives should be listed, perhaps they deserve their own section in order to prevent the "see also" section to appear as an open invitation for everybody to add their less related links.

Perhaps, given the rise of open source PBXes and softswitches in recent years, it may be worthwhile to have a separate page called "Open Source Software PBX" and then list all the available projects on that page, then linking only to that page in the "see also" section such as "other ope source software PBXes.

In any event, I would like to emphasise again my view that people who look up things such as Asterisk, Bayonne, Freeswitch, OpenPBX.org, sipX and Yate on Wikipedia are more likely to want to know about alternative projects then they are not, that consequently a way should be found by which such alternatives can be listed on the relevant pages.

thank you.

PS: I am not yet familar with the way in which to communicate with other people who edit pages here, so please forgive my inexperience. I am not entirely sure how I properly sign, nor even whether this page is the right place to repond.

UserID: stswp, Dec 9, 2006, 1:46pm GMT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stswp (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Posting here is best, unless the discussion starts at the article level. After posting your response, type 4 tilde's "~" at the end of your post and that date stamps your posting. Right now an automatic bot is running that does it for you. Some other hints - Use the "Show Preview" page when you are editing and review and make changes until you're satisfied with your edits, then "Save page" - otherwise the page has a long history of edits for the same update.

I only want to re-emphasize again that WP is an encyclopedia, not here for promotion. I'm glad you are expanding your article and will hold off on an WP:Afd until other editors chime in. To be safe, make sure you present information in a neutral and unbiased fashion - do not add promotional language. Present Pros and Cons - a clear indication that you are attempting to be unbiased in your presentation. Keep "external links" to a minimum and use inline citations instead. "Official Website" is sufficient. If you get a great review from an outside, independent source, reference it. Don't use paid inclusions or PR material - again a red flag because they are not unbiased. The standards are written up pretty well here WP:CORP. Good luck. Calltech 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OpenPBX.org - Not really a new page

Please note that the OpenPBX.org page is NOT REALLY A NEW PAGE.

Instead this page should be considered a correction of the OpenPBX page (without .org) which has been on Wikipedia before and I did not create that original page.

The use of OpenPBX for the OpenPBX.org project is not strictly legal in Australia because Voicetronix, an Australian company has a common law trademark on the name OpenPBX (without .org) there and the OpenPBX.org project has registered its own trademark in the US and Canada as "OpenPBX.org" (with .org), and not "OpenPBX". Voictronix use of the name OpenPBX predates the OpenPBX.org project by several years and at least in Australia this is relevant. In addition to the name clash with Voicetronix' software, there is yet another, third software which uses OpenPBX in its name and this predates both Voicetronix' and OpenPBX.org's use of the name.

As a result, the original error (creating a page with the title "OpenPBX" instead of "OpenPBX.org") had to be corrected.

I therefore turned the original "OpenPBX" page into a disambiguation page listing the three known uses of the name "OpenPBX" and moved what was the OpenPBX.org page mistitled "OpenPBX" to a new page properly titled "OpenPBX.org".

Consequently, the new OpenPBX.org page is not really a new page but a correction of a mistitled page which was there before.

It would be rather silly to see the new correctly titled page rejected by Wikipedia while the old mistitled page was accepted as it obviously has been there for some time.

I am beginning to get that feeling that Wikipedia is not the place to invest time if silly politics are getting in the way of providing valuable unbiased and well balanced information to the public.

You may want to take a look at the OpenPBX.org page I maintain at Voip-Info.org and you will see my work is of high quality. This wasn't written in a single day though.

I could have simply copied the content from Voip-Info.org (as the author of the content I am holding the copyright, regardless of the licensing on VoIP-Info.org) but I felt that the audience on Wikipedia is sufficiently different to customise the content specifically for this audience. In any event, I will now take a wait-and-see approach.

If I am allowed to maintain a page at Wikipedia it will eventually be of the same quality but if politics are getting in the way, then it is not worth my time. It would be Wikipedia's loss, not mine.

UserID: stswp, Dec 9, 2006, 2:28pm GMT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stswp (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC). Stswp 14:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of FreePBX

I've nominated FreePBX, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that FreePBX satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreePBX and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of FreePBX during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Calltech 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of FreePBX

I have nominated FreePBX, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreePBX (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Plrk (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)