Talk:Signalling System No. 7/Archive 1

Archive 1

Updating Ss7stack

I think the SS7 stack could do with being updated to show TUP as one of the L4 protocols and then cross-reference this to the TUP article. I guess this is controlled by the inclusion of the reference to "SS7stack" within two pairs of curly brackets. I can't work out how to edit this. Any pointers as to how I go about editing this would be appreciated. --AndyAicken 13:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Stack" is also very misleading. For instance ISUP is not dependant on SCCP as a transport layer, only MTP levels 2 & 3 are used. Same would be true of TUP. The stack is also inaccurate in one important respect. There is no such thing as MTP Level 1. Level 1 is the physical layer, it is not part of the MTP as no "messages" are transported. 217.36.0.13 14:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Q.701:

"The functions of each level of the MTP are performed by means of the level protocol between two systems which provides a “level service” to the upper levels (i.e. level 1 Signalling Data Link, level 2 Signalling Link and level 3 Signalling network) as described in Recommendations Q.702, Q.703 and Q.704 respectively."

MTP level 1 is the Signalling Data Link. 195.10.3.194 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, the {{SSstack}} template is now in that section (although it's also, I just noticed after editing the section on its own, at the top of the article... damn), and I've reworded the whole MTP1-3, SCCP, TCAP, TUP/ISUP part. I can't, off hand, think of any users of SCCP other than TCAP, although I'm not sure if the BSSAP is a TCAP user on top of SCCP, or uses SCCP in connection mode directly. Also, I've sort of hinted at the fact the TCAP article is misnamed - TCAP doesn't stand for Transaction Capabilities Application Part - never has, never will. It's Transaction Capabilities, as clearly evidenced by the titles of the Q.77x series of standards. 86.144.170.33 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the previous comment that ISUP does not use SCCP as a transport- the question is then- why SCCP has a subsystem called ISUP? I have seen meny tutorials saying that ISUP can be a SCCP user... However I have not ever seen such things in real life, if anybody can explain this part it would e good.

-Dmitry

Hi Dmitry. I can't think, off the top of my head, of any technical reason why ISUP couldn't sit on top of SCCP. It's just that... why would you want to use it in that manner? SCCP doesn't really buy you anything for ISUP routing, and you lose a (small) amount of MSU payload size for the SCCP labels, routes and headers. I'm not guaranteeing this answer, but it seems reasonable to me. Carre (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ISUP can indeed use SCCP - many stack diagrams in many texts show this - but it is not something that I am aware of that has ever been implemented commercially. Beardybloke (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: SS7 vs. C7

It is my understanding that SS7 relates to the ANSI standard while C7 relates to the ITU standard. Although with many things in common they are diferent in for example things as the addressing space.

Re: SS7 vs. C7

I believe SS7 and C7 to be synonyms. Often you will also find CCS7 for "Common Channel Signaling (System) 7". But yes, there are certain subtle differences wrt. e.g. lenghts of certain protocol fields such as CIC.

Re: SS7 vs. C7

Yes, SS7, C7 in common nomanclature references the signaling network.

There is no mention of the links or entities that create the SS7 network, IE: SSP, STP, SCP

Now with respect to the links themselves: 'A' Links = Access Links 'B' Links = Bridge Links 'C' Links = Cross Links 'D' Links = Diagonal Links 'E' Links = Extended Links 'F' Links = Fully associated Links

Now; there is also the database functionality that gets associated to the SCP. Also it should be noted that SS7 is a seperate network; and functions as an over lay to the PSTN. Ahh; this article will grow with time. Regards, Pete

C7 vs SS7

I've always thought of C7 as denoting the European standard, with the C standing for CCITT; similarly, I've seen J7 (Japanese variant), and A7 (ANSI variant).

Also, while I'm here, I'd say CAMEL should have a link off the main page.

Adding a link to the 'Products' section

Looking at the links on the 'Products' section I think this link to Aculab's SS7 offering would not be out of place: http://www.aculab.com/products/ss7.htm IANCEE 11:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also added a link to Squire Technologies SS7 products: http://www.squire-technologies.co.uk/products/index.html. --AndyAicken 13:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The number of links in the "Products" section appears to be getting excessive per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. -- Rob.au 09:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies

SS7 is relatively new nomenclature for what has historically always been known as C7, first under the CCITT then ITU/ETSI banners. When I first started working in the Telecommunications industry back in 1988 there was no mention of SS7 anywhere in any literature. Even when communicating with engineers in the USA the terminology used was always C7. There was no such signalling system as SS6, it has always been called C6 and it's not appropriate to retrospectively rename it to "fit in" with the new naming convention of SS7. The C naming convention has nothing to do with the ANSI or CCITT/ITU/ETSI variations of the signalling system, it relates to the fact that it is a Common Channel Signalling (CCS) system as opposed to a Channel Associated Signalling (CAS) system.

The ITU calls it SS#6 (see the ITU-T standards page). So, appropriate I guess it is. 195.10.3.194 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When I first encountered it in 1997 or 1998, noone at my workplace called it anything but SS7. (That was in Europe.) JöG (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I first came across it in the early nineties while working on IN which I guess must have been a transitional period for naming as it was referred to interchangeably as C7, CCS7, SS7 & also C6, CCIS6 and so on amongst both UK and US based engineers, unfortunately I dont recall if either referred to it predominantly as one over the other. beardybloke (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I started with it in 1985 and it was first CCS#7, and later SS7. — Dgtsyb (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove products section?

I'm proposing the total removal of the products section, and probably the services section too. These sections and their contents add nothing to the article, the lists are an arbitrary selection from the look of them (no Lucent, Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, Alcatel etc... even if those companies all seem to be merging together at a rapid rate of knots!). It seems like pointless spamming and commercial content that has no place on Wikipedia. Where a commercial site has something that actually adds to the article, such as a white paper or tutorial, then it could be linked as a reference to text in the main article, but as it is it's just a directory, and an incomplete one at that.

Objections from anyone (apart from the people who have added their own companies details, of course, since objections from such quarters are possibly biassed). 195.10.3.194 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would recommend deleting both the Products and the Services sections but User:Bradams recently did some general link clean up. I suggest we give Bradams' efforts a chance. If Bradams isn't monitoring this thread, suggests deletion, or if the spamming becomes a big problem then by all means remove those spam magnet sections. (Requestion 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

I saw the link clean ups in the history (sorry, the above IP address addition was me, from work). I think one of my major concerns is that several of the links in those sections aren't particularly notable in the field, whereas there are gaping omissions, as indicated in my IP addy post. Looking at the rest of the article, it seems to have a predominantly US authorship (note, not -centric; the content is pretty good thus far), hence perhaps the lack of the European big vendors like Nokia et al, but no Lucent? Cisco, Ulticom & Nortel are all big players in the signalling/network world, so perhaps deserve a place. Aculab is based, or at least has a presence, just up the road from where I live, so I know of them but am not sure of their prevalence in the field; as far as I'm aware, they make line cards for signalling, as well as DSPs and the like. The rest are unknown to me, at least, and I've been in the telco industry for about 12 years. If the sections were to remain, I'd personally prefer it if the non-notable links were ditched, and the big players put in instead (although I'd definitely prefer the lot to go).

In any case, I'll follow your advice and see what Bradams comes up with, if anything. Carre 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Certain sections of this article have been directly pulled from other copyrighted sites. In particular the "Functionality" section is pulled directly from IEC WebPro Forums. Would suggest leveraging this tutorial as well as another found at this site in order to cleanup the article and provide necessary citations.

I'm new to this section, so please feel free to give me feedback on what I've proposed. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but would be happy to help with the above. Witt04gti 20:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just edited your comments on this talk page to go in the order entered - makes it easier to understand. Hope you don't mind.

Anyway, to your point - if this is, indeed, plagiarism, it should be removed/edited/fixed as soon as possible! (I haven't checked, and didn't write that bit of the article.) I have been going through numerous telecoms protocol related articles recently, trying to improve them, but there are a huge number of, frankly, pretty poor examples on the wiki at the moment, and it's a struggle to even know where to start fixing them! Any help is much appreciated. In cases of plagiarism, like this, a good way to fix it would be to paraphrase available sources, and cite the sources. Avoid just linking to external sites with no explanation, as such links are likely to be removed as link spam. Carre 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Functionality (Automatic Redial Example)

Someone made an edit on 11 May 2007 that changed the *66 reference to *69. Quick poll of the major telecom websites shows that *66 was indeed correct. I'm reverting it back. Witt04gti 00:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Basic questions

This article leaves some basic questions in the mind of the lay reader.

• If the protocol no longer uses audio tones to transmit signals, is it now all digital ASCII text like TCP? Can we see an example?
• Is this something that the phone in my hand has to speak, or is it only something that the central office computers speak to one another?
• If all central office computers in the world don't speak this protocol, does that split the PSTN into multiple parts that cannot mutually communicate or require manual intervention?
• What part of this applies to cell phones vs. landlines?

-- Beland 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; we do need outsiders to keep us from just talking among ourselves. Mostly these questions belong in the linked PSTN article, which also doesn't cover such things very well. No, it's not ASCII; it's ISUP and that article is also a lot clearer to insiders than outsiders. No, the local loop uses older pulse dial and DTMF signaling, and SS7 is only among exchanges. Where some exchanges don't speak the language, a tandem exchange will translate as well as tandem the call through. None of it is cellphone; their exchanges translate to/from SSt but again we need to get all this into the various articles, since the encyclopedia isn't intended for us who already know. Jim.henderson 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Beland often puts very useful and relevant questions in SS7 related articles (I've found them useful on some I've been involved with, anyway), and reading the article and Jim's responses here, there's definitely a need to work on these!

• The protocol(s) don't use ASCII - they all pretty much define, within the relevant standard, how messages are encoded. TCAP users typically use ASN.1 (Abstract Syntax Notation) to define the coding. MTP, SCCP and the various call-related protocols use different encodings. ISUP is only one of the various components of SS7 - there are other call-related user parts (Telephony User Parts and National User Parts (TUP & NUP)) out there, although ISUP is gradually achieving dominance on the call setup side.
• As Jim says, the handset doesn't speak SS7, but the local loop doesn't necessarily just use pulse or DTMF... I vaguely recall doing some DPNSS or DASS2 (can't remember which) work for C&W in the UK a few years back, for handling local loop signalling.
• Jim's answer for the tandem exchange is spot on, to the best of my knowledge. There are still, however, occasional interworking problems, particularly interworking between GSM and ANSI networks.
• In the cellular world, GSM networks are entirely SS7 based, from the Central Office all the way out to the Radio Access Network (RAN) - the Air Interface (not an area I've ever worked on) doesn't come under the umbrella of SS7. Even UMTS networks still use SS7. I know next to nothing about N. American mobile networks, but I do know there are ANSI equivalents of TCAP and MAP (AS-41, off the top of my head).

I'm not entirely sure how to address this particular article - perhaps go all the way back to first principles, and use the Q.7xx specifications to properly define at least MTP 2 & 3 (that would answer the {{huh}} against the linkset part in the article). These days, unfortunately, I've pretty much stopped editing signalling related articles. Carre 16:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hah! I knew I was ignorant on GSM; just didn't appreciate how ignorant. Anyway a few minutes ago I added a first draft of a history subsection (forgetting to log in) in PSTN which I hope can help some readers. This SS7 article I figure also should be improved for civilians, but really it is a specialized concept and more needs good connections to other articles handling elementary points and background, than an introductory section. That is, unless someone proves me wrong by writing a good introduction here. Certainly there should be better presentation of the place of ISUP, TUP, NUP, whatever, within SS7, and SS7 within GSM. Anyway, the points that very much require clarification are not the deep ones about specifications and such, which only insiders will understand anyway, but shallow questions which any intelligent and curious outsider will ask, which insiders take for granted. Jim.henderson 02:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links

LeeDryburgh 14:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC), I'm rather aggrieved by the actions of user 'Dgtsyb' for reverting my changes yesterday and with the editing note 'commercial linkspam'. This is clearly unwarranted and not-acceptable behaviour by this user. I spent years of my life lead-authoring the most prolific work on SS7 and yesterday made it freely available, all 744 pages. There is not a more authoritative source on the topic. So to spend years creating the best source of information on the topic and giving it away free only to run into users who remove the link is not acceptable. Furthermore the replacement link is to a commercial web tutorial, which is skant and inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedryburgh (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying that 80.108.90.135 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) is a sockpuppet for Leedryburgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)?

How many sockpuppets do you have? Your previous Linkbit commercial spamming was discussed here User talk:JanCeuleers#Linkbit commercial link and here User talk:MartinBot#SIGTRAN.

Your recent link is to a commercial website offering products and services and making a book available for download is advertising. You were informed that free protocol decoder utilities, then, are external link spam; and free books now are as well. You could further the goals of Wikipedia by contributing content (even from your book) instead of link spam. Please see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming.

I have reverted your change again. Please discuss here before adding it a third time. Dgtsyb (talk · contribs) June 6 2008 12:16 UTC

Leedryburgh: you have added this external link spam again, without discussion. I have added another warning to your talk page. See Talk:Signaling System 7#External links and User talk:Dgtsyb#Wrongly Labeling Links as Linkspam for justification. If you add these links again it will be reported. Dgtsyb (Talk) 00:46 June 13, 2008 UTC —Preceding comment was added at 00:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Counter

Response to Dgtsyb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam): I find both the assertion and tone of the sockpuppets rant above not warranted and contrary to the Wikipedia ethos of both checking the basic facts and assuming good faith. Because I was not logged in the IP address 80.108.90.135 was shown. Upon login, my username LeeDryburgh was shown. The claim that “Your previous Linkbit commercial spamming was discussed” is untrue and libelous.

Since you did the first revert I have been at odds to understand why you are labeling it as link spam. I’ve given up on trying to get a clear explanation from you as it has not been forthcoming. When you first did a revert, I read Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming. I could not see upon reading it how you deemed it linkspam.

I think the further we got was your assertion of “Your recent link is to a commercial website offering products and services and making a book available for download is advertising”. The website in question has a banner header and footer, that is all. The rest of the content is the most authoritative source on the topic and contrary to your earlier assertion on my talk page, is not available by normal means as it is no longer in publication. Once again I repeat that since it is no longer in publication and is the most authoritative source, then it is plainly ridiculous for Wikipedia not to link to it. I ask again that you stop reverting the external links to remove it, placing the IEC tutorial in it’s place.

Finally your suggestion to add content is a good one. This is what I planned to do; however I am stuck off the starting block adding a link to the most authoritative source as you keep removing the link. So since I can not even make a basic edit without your intervention and continuous warnings, I doubt I can move forwards to add much content. Can I suggest that you put more time into explanation your actions, rather than issuing warnings as if you did more explanation, you may need to issue fewer warnings, then we would all benefit. LeeDryburgh 12:43 June 13, 2008 UTC

I added a reference to the book in the References section. I have successfully downloaded the book by following the ISBN link to the Book Source page and following "Find this book". It is indeed available by normal methods. I invite you to make citations to this book reference, but linking to your own site when the book is available by normal methods is certain link spamming. Dgtsyb (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The book is not available. I've repeated this many times. Why you are choosing to link to an ISBN page about the book I have no idea? I linked to the actual content of the book, which again as stated is not available except by the link I linked to. Please explain why you are doing Wikipedians harm by providing them with a link about a book that is not in publication instead of leaving the link to the actual entire book in electronic format? LeeDryburgh 14:02 June 13, 2008 UTC —Preceding comment was added at 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted by and not by non-existent (at the time) User:LeeDryburgh. Please sign your posts with your true user name. Dgtsyb (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're unlikely to agree on the above so I've therefore asked for a third opinion in relation to the external links, to help build a consensus one way or the other. LeeDryburgh (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted by and not by non-existent (at the time) User:LeeDryburgh. Please sign your posts with your true user name. Dgtsyb (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop making wild negative assertions against me and direct your time and energy to adding content to Wikipedia please? As I keep requesting, stop the bullying. Leedryburgh (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

third opinion

first, I think accusations of sock-puppetry are unnecessary, here. I don't see any indication that the anon edits were in bad faith, particularly since Leedryburgh mentioned them outright.

with respect to the actual content of the dispute, Lee, I can see why Dgtsyb might be worried about this being a spam link, since in fact there are huge banners advertising your own training courses on every page (at least, judging by the similarity of that name and your username). I'm not sure it actually is spamming, since there appears to be a whole lot of relevant material on the pages, but I can see why it might have that appearance.

if I may suggest a compromise: Lee, can you create and post a PDF version of your book on that site, and make a link directly to the PDF so that people coming from wikipedia don't see the seminar banners? I don't think anyone would object if you added a note about your seminars on the title page of your book (so long as it's discrete) and I'm thinking that would remove any spam-link worries. --Ludwigs2 19:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the request for third opinion above was made from an invalid username, possibly to obscure the contents of User talk:Leedryburgh. Dgtsyb (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

that would seem like a pretty weak gambit...  :-) let's try to settle this with good faith, Dgtsyb - would my suggestion (above) satisfy you? --Ludwigs2 01:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that a Wikipedia editor should attempt to dictate how a person or commercial entity runs its own website, or how that person or commercial entity chooses to format information it makes available there. First, it is not Wikipedia's place to do so; second, it cannot be effectively monitored or enforced. Wikipedia policy tells us that we avoid links (item 15) to commercial book sellers when we can ISBN link instead. The book in question has an ISBN. Could a download link be provided in the Book's citation? Yes, but I believe that it is a conflict of interest for the author of the book to place either a citation of the book or a link to the author's website. Also, I believe that it still consitutes spam even if it is not external link spam in that case. I do not see how an author can maintain a neutral point of view when citing his own work, unless the citation is merely applied as (possibly additional) verification of content already in the article.

As regards sock puppetry, it is revealed here: editing his own edits and referring to himself as "someone else". Checking Special:Contributions/80.108.90.135 you will see that 80.108.90.135 primarly just adds spam links, usually replacing more legitimate links with his own, all of the spam links are to one of Leedryburgh's sites, whereas Leedryburgh never does. 80.108.90.135 resolves to a University in a different country from which Lee Dryburgh claims to live, and Bittech operates, as was discovered for 63.204.19.188 IP sock puppet of M_i_t_r_a who was link-spamming Linkbit links the year before. This is surely to be to avoid scrutiny and to make it appear as though there is no conflict of interest by using an an IP sock puppet. And Leedryburgh did not fess up: in External Links above, he simply said "my changes" when they were performed by 80.108.90.135 and was caught.

"Discovered sock puppet" . "link spam". You guys are nuts. Nobody was trying to hide, use puppets or add spam links. 63.204.19.188 was used by _two_ people. Sitting in the same office. Trust me, if I wanted to hide or use puppets - you wouldn't have known it. I was genuinely trying to improve the content by including the link to free, noncommercial, educational tool. P.S. I think that the link to the kenneyjacob is of poor quality. Same goes with openss7. But I don't really care. Mitra (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, 80.108.90.135 is a confirmed sock puppet of Leedryburgh and is the external link spammer that I and other editors have been reverting as vandalism in many instances in many telecommunications articles over the last several years, but particularly on SIGTRAN and Signaling System 7 articles. It has only become noxious as of late: originally the IP sock puppet added links to Bittech's SS7 discussion forums at www.c7.com, which actually had some utility and were allowed to persist until the forum went off-line. Then the sock puppet started adding links to www.sigtran.net, www.bittech.co.uk, www.ss7-training.net when the discussion forum links were removed. This later work of the sock puppet, being far more commercial, and replacing other legitimate links were reverted as vandalism by many different editors watching these pages until this tirade regarding me reverting only the sock puppet's most recent spam attempt.

Notice that the IP sock puppet does not just add a link to this book, but also replaces groups of potentially competing links with his own, as it attempted before this discussion with changing another site to one of his own and calling it a "newer" site. Of course, www.sigtran.net belongs to Lee Dryburgh and www.sigtran.org does not. www.sigtran.net is commercial, www.sigtran.org is not.

So to summarize, no, I do not agree with your proposal: This is not an isolated incident. I do not want to permit this sock-puppeting vandal to place any link to Leedryburgh's commercial sites in this or any other telecommunications article. The book can be referenced by ISBN, which is sufficient, should it ever be cited by someone other than Leedryburgh. --- Dgtsyb (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I suppose it is bittech.co.uk not linkbit.com. Just look at Leedryburgh's IP sock puppet contributions for details. --- Dgtsyb (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I filled a suspected sock puppet report. You may find the suspected sock puppetry case here. --- Dgtsyb (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry to read about that user ‘Dgtsyb’ both does not a) wish to listen to a third opinion nor b) will drop absurd claims in relation to sock puppetry. Unfortunately the user appears to have copious amounts of time to invest in what seems bullying tactics by utilizing his better knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia and his excess free time. Unfortunately I do not have the time that the user ‘Dgtsyb’ has free. So my response has to be more limited.

In essence in relation to a) I have intimated numerous times that the book is the most authoritative source on the topic. I have also intimidated that it is no longer possible to purchase the book in print nor access it free of charge online other than the URL I linked to. I kindly made the entire 744 pages available online free of charge with no sign-up or any other obstruction. It will only be made available from the URL I linked to as that was the URL I agreed to with the publisher. I feel very disappointed that I go to lengths to make such a volume of work accessible free of charge and user ‘Dgtsyb’ spends much time trying to obstruct this process. I feel further disappointed that he vandalises my talk page with warnings, even when I have expressed disagreement with his opinion and sought dialogue.

In relation to b) the user has already been told that if I have done an edit but forgot to login it will show the given IP address 80.108.90.135. Claims that that IP address adds spam links replacing legitimate links is absurd! Then the user claims when I do remember to login (thus username ‘LeeDryburgh’ shows) no spam links are added but this runs completely counter to everything this user has claimed up to this point. So much so that the user was adding spam link warnings to my talk page. If this was not bad enough the user claims to know where I claim to live and contends that the IP address resolves to a different country. This quite frankly is uncivil and goes against any idea I could have of Wikipedia ethos. For the record the IP address does resolve to the country in which I live (most of the time). Why the user then brings up IP address 63.204.19.188 and the username M_i_t_r_a I have no idea? If someone else has the time maybe they can investigate why he brings this up as neither the IP address nor that username has ever had any association with myself. He also speaks about spamming for the company LinkBit but again I have no clue as to why he raises this. To make matters even worse the user claims that I changed a link a long time back from sigtran.org to sigtran.net. Indeed I did because at the time the .org was years out of date and the .net held newer information. The user claims the .org was not commercial but the .net was. This is completely untrue as the former is run by Xygnada Technology, Inc.

I understand that it’s a rule of the house to assume good faith but after a given number of exchanges it would be hard not to deduce that user ‘Dgtsyb’ is performing actions against the commons rather than for the commons. This is a shame as he appears to have knowledge better than I on the workings of Wikipedia and a lot of free time to invest. Both of which if directed better could serve to contribute to the commons that Wikipedia represents rather than to detract from it.

My suggestion is that we restore the link to the book so that the public can gain free access to the most authoritative source on the topic. I can then invest time to make the articles better rather than trying to defend good actions. Finally because the user keeps making endless negative assertions in relation to identity, please feel free to email me which I will respond to which will provide confirmation of company and IP address (lee*ss7*net). If user ‘Dgtsyb’ is allowed to go on in such a manner unchecked he will succeed in chasing the author of the best book on the topic from both contributing to Wikipedia and away from trying to put the best book on the topic into the commons free of charge. Would it be an idea to engage an admin to deal with this user so as to save time being further wasted? --- LeeDryburgh (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To user Leedryburgh: please sign and date your posts properly. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, this is done by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. False timestamps with false signatures which link nonexistent user pages do not aid discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 00:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lee, Dgt... please allow me to point out that last exchange was almost entirely about editors, not about content. that is a sure, slow, painful road to nowhere. may I try to get this conversation back on track?

1. Sockpuppetry is a problem that none of us have any control over. you have made your report, and it is now up to the admins to investigate and deal with the issue if it needs dealing with. let's not talk about it anymore.
   • Lee, I would ask you to take care for the time being only to edit when you are using this account, ok? no sense fueling the fire.
   • Dgt, give him a chance. I can tell you're annoyed, but lets try to resolve this on content issues rather than personal terms.
2. the most important question in my mind is this: is this book that Lee is offering a useful, meaningful, and appropriate link for this article?
   • dgt, I need your opinion on this - pretend you don't know who wrote it, and tell me if it would be acceptable on its own merits; why or why not (and please be honest, because this is a very abstruse topic...)
   • if it is appropriate, then we can start worrying about the social problems involved in using it. I happen to agree that it should not be a marketing tool (even unintentionally), but I think that issue can be ironed out.

--Ludwigs2 00:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To Leedryburgh (talk · contribs): Are you also M i t r a (who is 38.99.84.14 - e.g. here) and Ad99sl? — Athaenara ✉ 00:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, why do you ask? Leedryburgh (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted {{userlinks}} and diffs on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Leedryburgh. — Athaenara ✉ 18:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs), in response to your questions about the the book:

Disregarding who originally authored it, the book as published, in several editions, by Cisco Press does not represent the most authoritative book on the subject of this article. There are a number of books considered more authoritative, written by authors with a high degree of credibility in the field of telecommunications, such as Uyless Black, and having published many books on related subjects for reputable publishers, such as John Wiley & Sons, Prentice Hall (Pearson Education, Inc. without the Cisco corporate influence), McGraw Hill, and others, most of which are in wide use as textbooks in telecommunications courses at the collegiate and university levels. Nevertheless, I know of no claims that either edition of the book is controversial or otherwise flawed.

That any edition of a book is out of print is not in of itself an issue: when it has an ISBN number, it can often still be purchased from a number of sources, is available on the used market when valuable, is available through interlibrary loans should any major library have collected the book, and may be available in digital formats, such as the free eBook format from the original publisher (as in this case). If you already have a library card, the book may already be free for you.

However, I don't believe that we are discussing a third-party published edition of a book. We are talking about a link to a self-published book on a commercial website, one claimed to be operated by the author of the self-published book. It does not matter that a book was published by a third-party in the past: when its author has full editorial control over its content, it is self published.

In terms of verifiability, an ISBN referenced book (any edition) is more verifiable than the self-published work and is to be preferred.

Now, I have no problem with an article referencing a third-party published verion of a book, including this one. I have even gone to the extent of adding a reference to the References section of this article referencing one edition of the book. So, in fact, the book is already referenced (although not yet cited) by the article.

In my opinion (since you asked for it), regardless of who the author might be, an author pointing an external link to a self-published edition of a book on a commercial website operated by the author would constitute a conflict of interest and external link spam and act to reduce the verifiabiliy and therefore the quality of the article, and be in contravention of numerous Wikipedia policies on the matter, and against the goals of Wikipedia. The author deleting three other external links in the same stroke, as this one did, would make it simple vandalism. — Dgtsyb (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The book is the most authoritative on the topic and to contend otherwise simply serves to show the lack of research by user Dgtsyb. The Uyless Black book is a primer, extremely short and is not even dedicated to the topic. The accusation by user Dgtsyb that the book in question has "corporate influence" is completely malign. He appears to assume since it was published by Cisco Press then it will be Cisco biased. If he took the time to read some of the book it would be clear to him that the book is entirely neutral being a technology not a product related book. As I have kept stating, the irrefutable fact is it is the most authoritative on the topic; it is the largest volume of work and is the only book to cover the topic from not only a North American perspective but also an International perspective. In relation to publication, the book was in print until recently. Now it is only sold in Amazon Kindle format. Because I felt unhappy that having it restricted to that format would take a valuable piece of engineering documentation out of the public domain, I negotiated very hard with the publisher to obtain permission to place the book in HTML format at the site I linked to. It seems that user Dgtsyb is suggesting it would be better for the digital commons if instead of having a hyperlink to the entire book online free of charge in the external links section, that online users are instead to track down a library which holds the printed edition, join and then travel to that library to view a copy. Leedryburgh (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lee, please try to avoid speculating about what other editors are thinking. it never resolves anything, and tends to annoy the editor in question. ok?

now, it seems from dgt's comments that he has no particular objection to the book itself, his issue has to do with the commercial aspect of the website it is posted on. here's the way it seems to me.

• the book is a respectable entry in the literature on the subject
  • the issue of whether or not it is the "best" book available is irrelevant to this argument - let's just leave it that it is usable and respectable.
• the book is not self-published. It was published by a reputable press, which still holds rights over its distribution (as evidenced by the fact that it is distributed on Kindle, and that special permission was needed to post it in html format).
• the book is (problematically) hosted on a site which contains prominent banners for commercial activities of its author
  • this is not link spam (per adjudication)
  • this is questionable - Idealistically, wikipedia should not be a marketing tool, but in practice the individuals who participate on wikipedia all have lives that cannot be separated from their commercial activities. while I won't go so far as to say this falls under WP:COI, it is an issue that needs to be considered.

again, I think this problem is easy to resolve, if you are both willing. if Lee is willing to provide a version of the e-book where your commercial interests are either drastically reduced or removed entirely, there won't be any substantive reason to exclude the link. further, Lee, you should take extraordinary care to use the talk page and give good reasons if you want to edit out links that might be perceived to be in competition with your book. for instance, looking the diff dgt provided above, you removed two links using this edit summary: removed weak links and added stronger link than rest - to the largest book on the topic now available online in full. No one has an objective opinion about the worth of their own work, and acts like this will always come across as self-serving, even when they are done in entirely good faith.

my recommendation is to leave the link out of the article until a less commercial format can be given (Lee, leave a note on my talk page if you need help with technical details); once that is provided I see no reason for it to be excluded

and let's drop all suspicions and try a fresh start.  :-)--Ludwigs2 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs), I can abide by your suggestion. If he is agreeable, I will leave you to work out the details with Leedryburgh. Please watch to see that your conditions are met as promotional links will simply be removed. Also note that we are now opening the door to any author with a downloadable version of their own book on their website. Please watch on to ensure that your proposal has not initiated another spam event horizon as was the case with this article's previous Products section. — Dgtsyb (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

that's reasonable. I'll keep this page on my watchlist and do my best to keep things from flying out of hand should that start to happen. --Ludwigs2 18:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs): considering recent edits by User:Leedryburgh, the time has already come for you to hold up your end of this bargain. — Dgtsyb (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegations are unsubstantiated

I have reviewed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Leedryburgh and found no violation of policy by the accused user. He edited without logging in, but he was permitted to do this. I see no evidence connecting Leedryburgh to the two accounts mentioned immediately above by Athaenara.

Please leave me a note on my user talk page if I can help Ludwig2 and Athaenara in mediating this dispute. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see questions on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Leedryburgh. If the one instance is not sock puppetry, I would like to known that I can use the technique to the advantage of external links to my own personal and corporate websites. — Dgtsyb (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving Forwards

A third opinion was sought twice. In each case the link in question was not considered spam. The further allegation raised by the same user of sock puppetry was also deemed to be unsubstantiated. In light of these facts I suggest that I restore the link. Once the link is restored - unless user Dgtsyb continues in an editing war and/or making more claims that prove to be false - then my plan of action is to contribute to both articles in question (Signaling System 7 and SIGTRAN). I ask that user Dgtsyb moves forward on the topic now and desists from undoing the edit and consequently placing spam warnings on my talk page. Leedryburgh (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User Dgtsyb has again undid the addition of the link completing ignoring dialogue with me and two third opinions. The user has ignored the suggestion to move forwards. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Leedryburgh (talk · contribs), please await a resolution to this dispute before attempting additional COI and link spam edits. — Dgtsyb (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Dgtsyb (talk · contribs), since it was me who raised started the resolution process I suggest that you both stop reverting the changes and falsely stating "spam"/COI at each turn. As I requested time and time again stop reverting things until a resolution process has been carried out. You've already done two reverts today alone even though two third opinions were given against your statements. Leedryburgh (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't post more requests on Wikipedia:Third opinion when third opinions have already been given. If those opinions haven't helped resolved this dispute, then getting more won't help either. You need to explore arbitration or some other form of dispute resolution. The sidebar on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page has links to other means of resolving disputes. =Axlq 15:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Leedryburgh (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the resolution process and it seems rather beyond me. So unless someone can step in to help, this silly editing war is likely to go on unresolved. Leedryburgh (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

patience... you have to take a 'long haul' attitude with wikipedia. what happens at any given moment might seem oh so dramatically important, but over time things settle out.  :-) --Ludwigs2 17:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Leedryburgh link temporarily removed

in the interests of sanity...  :-)

Lee, please see the suggestions I left you on my talk page. I'll see that your link is restored once it meets the relevant criteria, no worries, but let's not push the issue until it does.

oh, and Dgt - no more warning templates on Lee's talk page please. you've made your point, but it's starting to look like a forrest of little alert signs over there.  ;-)

--Ludwigs2 23:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, please make same adjustment to SIGTRAN and I will withdraw again. (By the way, if you look closely, not all user warnings on User talk:Leedryburgh are from me.) Dgtsyb (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done that, though I honestly think this was one of those crossed-messages kind of things. I'm sure we'll have it sorted out in no time. --Ludwigs2 23:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting Link Back

Ludwigs2 thanks for your input and suggestions on how to restore the link. I've dropped the text in the headers and footers from x-large to medium. As such I will restore the link. If you think of other suggestions, I'm happy to hear them.

Additionally I'd like to point out two observations in relation to the articles in question, Signaling_System_7, SIGTRAN.

The first is that I've read over both articles and they are exceptionally poor quality. Since I am the only person I know who has made a career solely from these topics and wrote the best book the topic, I should know. I've read some other articles in associated areas and looked at their discussion pages and notice that there is not a user like Dgtsyb bullying people away. I'd suggest that the behavour of Dgtsyb is hindering not helping these articles progress.

The second is that all but one of the existing links is commercial. I therefore do not take it kindly that when I offer a link no more commercial than the other links, and my link is of better content overall for the average wikipedian, it is singled out. Let me explain. The only non-commercial link is http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/ss7/ but it is very short, inaccurate as well as wrong in areas. It forces you to subscribe to get the PDF. http://www.telecomspace.com/ss7.html - I have the largest forums on SS7 but switched them off for now due to spam. The user who owns the link above replaced my link with his. The site runs Google Ads prominently. It also pushes commercial links, e.g. "cell phone charges", "international cell phone. http://www.kenneyjacob.com/2007/06/05/ss7-backbone-of-mobile-networks/ - That link is one page and is of poor quality. It is not appropriate to link to such a page by any standard. http://www.openss7.org/ - Is a commercial organisation which makes money from selling solutions featuring the openss7 protocol stack. I should know as I've done business with Brian behind openss7.

I'd like to ask that in light of the changes I made to the link and the points above, that a full stop is now placed on this issue. I will now restore the link. Thanks. Leedryburgh (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please allow Ludwigs2 to review and allow him to insert links when it meets his conditions. Thank you. — Dgtsyb (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Again I don't feel Dgtsyb acted with the best interests of Wikipedia by removing the link again. Since it is adding value over and above the other external links as described above, I plan to place it back. Leedryburgh (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Further suggestion for user Dgtsyb. I see you have been editing the articles in question in terms of content; it appears you are intentionally added references to a book which is not as good just to flare up the situation. But that does not bother me so much. What bothers me more and what harms Wikipedia more is it is clear from your edits that you are not an expert in the area, that instead you have a rough knowledge and you think that skim reading a book and posting references is making the articles better. I really do suggest that you put less time into fighting absurd link changes and edit articles instead which you maybe do know more about. I can then put some energy into editing the articles in question. Leedryburgh (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lee...

editors on wikipedia are not required to be experts, and in fact, wikipedia isn't really the place for experts per se. Wikipedia is supposed to be 3rd-hand sourcing - nothing original, nothing provocative, nothing explicitly educational, just plain simple descriptions of topics. Please don't criticize dgt for being an interested non-expert. that has no bearing on anything here.

I've looked over the links (including yours) and here's what I see.

• your link is the only one offering an overt commercial product. of the others, one looks like a blog, one looks like an unaffiliated telecom forum, and one is an open source project of some sort.

Not true at all. I gave a fair description of the other links above, please evaluate what I said. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I did read it, I just don't see what you're seeing.

• telecomspace - first, where are the google ads you speak of? I don't see them. further, google ads or generic commercial links are one thing, but a direct, solid link to your own personal seminars is a different thing entirely. if telecomspace were selling a product of its own, it would not be a good source either, but I don't see that happening.
• kenneyjacobs - I can't judge quality, I don't have the skills. but, he's not selling anything...
• openss7 - again, this links to an open source project, and nowhere on this page do I see any obvious encouragement to purchase anything from from these people. I don't doubt that it is a commercial organization; I just don't see them being commercial on this page. that would be an excellent model for you to follow.

• the commercial product in question is your own personal business and fair or not, wikipedia has rules against connecting articles with personal commercial efforts.

At least two of the other links are personal commercial efforts,i.e. openss7 or telecomspace. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

possibly true, but I couldn't prove it by looking at their pages. can you tell me how, using the links given for these organizations, I could purchase anything from them? one glance at your page, and it is abundantly clear how to buy something from you.

• the link is being sponsored by you. it might be a different case if there were some reputable, independent third party saying that this book was an important work in the field, but right now it's just self promotion.

The other two links i just mentioned, the same applies. I see no reason why I should be treat different, particularly when it is of greater value overall than the other links. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

see above, and see above...

• your link really strikes me as expert level material, and wikipedia generally aims at casual readers looking for basic understandings.

Not true. It begins with four introductory chapters! Leedryburgh (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept that as true, because I really can't judge.

now I'm just an independent observer and not really in a position to dictate anything, but if you were to push me for my opinion right now, I would tell you that the link does not belong on either of these articles and should be removed as an unambiguous matter of policy. I've been trying to avoid that, and to help you clean it up so it doesn't so clearly violate policy, but you're dragging your heels on me, man. so let me be clear: if it's important to you to keep the overt commercial aspect of your link intact, then you really need to find some other forum than Wikipedia for it. if you're willing to make good faith (i.e. more than token) efforts to remove the commercial elements, then your link would be a welcome addition. there's no issue here about you or the quality of your book, both of which I respect. it's purely a policy issue about what Wikipedia is and isn't designed to be.

I am quite willing to make changes such that it matches the other external links, whichever way you see them as different. Please advise as soon as you can, thanks. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the links again. please don't put them back until and unless you decide to embrace non-commercialism wholeheartedly. --Ludwigs2 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As said I am happy to embrace the standard that i see on the other external links. As I see that I already match that, it would be good if you could point out the difference that you see so that I have an opportunity to match. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Then ok, embrace the standards. when I can follow the link to your page and be unable to tell what it is you're selling and how I might buy it from you, then your page will match these and I'll support you 100%. --Ludwigs2 16:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an offer and I feel that needing to make an offer is unfair when you are allowing other links just or even more commercial to be placed as detailed above. But if you keep insisting somehow it is different (please explain) then what about if I create a subdomain say book.ss7.net and place the book there with zero headers/footers? Leedryburgh (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

also, Lee - please be careful about using clear indents, and editing in to other people's posts. it makes it incredibly difficult to follow the thread of conversation when you do that. --Ludwigs2 16:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I did not realise. OK I get what you mean now, lets disassociate the product/service more from the content. I'll create a subdomain books.ss7.net, and upload a copy there without the headers/footers.Leedryburgh (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Leedryburgh, I was not trying to aggravate you by adding citations to articles. To demonstrate that, I have added citations to an edition of your book as well.

Ludwigs2, in fitting with JeremyMcCracken's third opinion comments on Talk:SIGTRAN#Third opinion, it will be more appropriate to add the book link to the citation, rather than the External Links section. Also, in fitting with Dorvaq's comments here , the link should be to a PDF version of the book. I have left url and accessdate tags commented out in the References section of both SIGTRAN and Signaling System 7 so that they can be added there.

I don't think it is worth responding to the PDF mention as we have mentioned that to death and you know it is not an option available. I think you are playing games here. You just pulled in an extra person JeremyMcCracken who was not so involved simply because things were not going your way 100%. I'd say a lot more but Wikipedia seems against expressing such personal opinions. Leedryburgh (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Leedryburgh, to which of the ISBN's is the online version of the book an exact copy? — Dgtsyb (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you visit the book online and see? The ISBN is listed at the start Leedryburgh (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

let me point out first that you're both falling into a very common pattern here. I've seen it a million times, in and out of Wikipedia: when a dispute is right on the verge of being resolved, frustrations and grumpinesses start to rise - not from the dispute per se, but from the kind of mild insulted feeling that's always a part of having a dispute. don't let it get ya.  :-)

DGT, the ISBN is 1-58705-040-4.

As I said right at the start of this time waste excercise, there is no point citing a book out of print or at least if you do, link to the full book online. Lets not go back to square one after weeks.Dgtsyb I suggest you have some time out, with family instead of the computer (if you have any) and try and get a little perspective in your life. Leedryburgh (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

don't worry about a PDF version - Jeremy wasn't responding to the discussion that we were having directly, but just speaking in general. I think if we can all hang in with the Good Faith beliefs for just a little bit more while Lee de-commercializes the HTML version, we can let this discussion go and move on to bigger and better things. --Ludwigs2 00:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

well said. I for one have a few more important things in my life than an external book link. I'll place up a version without headers as soon as a I get a little free time and relink to it. Leedryburgh (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

It seems we are going back to square one again. Again you seem to want to cite a book that you can not purchase and do not want to link to the full book online. The plan of action is to remove banners and place external links. Dgtsyb said wait for the opinion of Ludwigs2 which I did and plan to follow. Trying to roll the clock back even further is a blatant bullying from Dgtsyb and contrary to even his own agreement. Leedryburgh (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I think you mean Dorvaq above instead of Jeremy: Jeremy's post was a third opinion post on Talk:SIGTRAN#Third opinion saying that the online book would be appropriately tagged from a citation, but was inappropriate in the External Links section. — Dgtsyb (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lee - actually, I think Dgt is working with you very fairly. the ISBN citation is a useful piece of information (for historical verification, if nothing else), and it seems he is willing to accept the external link once we have all agreed on it. this is progress.  :-) please take a moment and read his last post again; I think you'll see what I mean.

Dgt - maybe I did get confused on the references; my apologies.--Ludwigs2 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I read what DGT is saying differently, the way I read it, he wants to roll back to square one again. Due to what you say above, I'll give him the benefit of doubt. Leedryburgh (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read it again and see three ways of reading what he says. Assuming your interpretation is correct I'll restore the link tomorrow. I've also put a request for clarification on the talk page of DGT here User_talk:Dgtsyb#Clarification_w.2Fregards_SS7_links Leedryburgh (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK no word back so I assume all is well, I'll go ahead and restore the links. Leedryburgh (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User Dgtsyb is failing to response to repeated requests for information and is failing to respond to comments here, but immediately removed the link when placed back. Since the user is failing to communicate, unless someone can escalate this, I can only keep reverting his changes. Leedryburgh (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

re-added link

Lee - I looked at the link that you reinstated in your last edit - here - and it still has all the banners attached. I thought we all agreed they were leaving. did you accidentally link to the wrong page? --Ludwigs2 17:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DGT had said "I don't think the banners are so obnoxious: at least on the head page of the Jun 18, 2008 version." above, so I assumed all was good? Leedryburgh (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ah heavens... I'll leave that one for Dgt to answer. me, I thought the deal was that you were going to go farther than that and de-commercialize the site more completely. that's what I'd think was more appropriate, but I'm willing to bow if the two of you come to a different agreement. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I agreed to abide by your proposal, which I believe included removing all commercial mention. Leedryburgh has been editting in the middle of others' posts so often that it is getting hard to tell. — Dgtsyb (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the version by Ludwigs2 and it states "Site Courtesy of SS7 Networks LTD (main page) permission by Cisco Press". My revised version states "Site Courtesy of SS7 Networks LTD - see www.SS7.Net For More Information". The one modified by Ludwigs2 appears broken in places. I really think we are way beyond complete insanity to keep this going. Unless someone can give me clearly defined reason why I'd need to change the newly created subdomain text to that of Ludwigs2 I will leave it as is. As stated before the other external links are even more commercial so I can not accept this external link being treated with a different measure stick than the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.90.135 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (oops I was not logged in Leedryburgh (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

Ludwigs2, please check Leedryburgh's recent links to see if they meet with your criteria. Thank you. — Dgtsyb (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Editorial Suggestions

As a "Disinterested" 3rd party, who is accessing Wikipedia for the sole purpose of research (PhD), may I suggest Wikipedia's management review all of the posts on this page in order to observe the obvious "unprofessionalism" which I view as obvious? This only serves to damage Wikipedia's reputation, and cause people to look for a more "professional" source for content.--Bdinsac (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bdinsac - are you referring to the posts on the talk page, or something to do with the article itself? Wikipedia doesn't have much of a management; it operates mostly on the basis of debate-to-consensus, and that can get a little rollicky with people who aren't used to the kind of academic debate that you and I take for granted. if you have specific suggestions, however, post them here; on Wikipedia, good suggestions are worth their weight in gold.  :-) --Ludwigs2 04:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2. I rarely find anything I don't like with the articles I find on Wikipedia. It was the repeated "banter" and complaining on the talk page, which besides being "unprofessional" in nature, reminded me of something out of a Junior High School, NOT supposidly Academic Professionals.--Bdinsac (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, well... this page is pretty mild by comparison to some. you should keep in mind that a certain number of people who edit here probably are junior high school students; nothing in wikipedia requires the attention of academic professionals.

I'd worry a little, actually, about using Wikipedia for anything more than a general knowledge reference. no offense to Wikipedia, but you really can't trust that any particular article is going to give you PhD quality information. I find it useful for getting quick surveys of things without delving into my notes (because I know enough to recognize when the editors here got it wrong), but it's not ever going to cut it as authoritative in academic contexts. --Ludwigs2 06:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Citizendium makes an earnest attempt to exclude childishness and unreliable information by ensuring that all contributors are grown up and all bosses are degreed, but it comes out as a much smaller reference with depth in a few narrow topics such as who ever heard of this one? but nothing about, for example, SS7 or even telephone signaling or switching in general. In the tradeoff between quantity and quality, our own Wikipedia leans decidedly towards quantity, leaving much spottiness in terms of quality. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

link revisited?

I've looked at (what I assume is) the most current version of Leedryburgh's webpage addition to this page, and I have to say that if this is as far as he's willing to go, I give up. I've tried to get him to reduce the banners to a reasonable size, but he is apparently not willing to budge on the issue at all. I recommend that the link be removed permanently (or until he's willing to make some significant compromises on commercialism).

sorry, but I just don't want to argue fruitlessly over this anymore. if you have a change of heart, offer a new version and we can reconsider it then. --Ludwigs2 23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs), could you also please remove the links from the citations, then, at Signaling System 7#References and SIGTRAN#References. Or I will do it for you if you would prefer. Thank you. Dgtsyb (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain it to me then - I dont see whats wrong with his page as it stands at the moment - I couldnt easily discern any advertising in it - there was a simple banner with the name of the text and then links to the sections of the book which had the same banner at the top. Theres nothing particularly commercial about the portion of the site linked to? (Theres one tiny link to the parent company saying they allowed the book to be available free and one at the bottom which says who hosts the site linking to the same place - its hardly 40 foot neon billboards). Beardybloke (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit War July 2008

Could you both please just step back and take a big deep breath. The edit war is getting a little tiring and as someone who monitors the SS7 page its also distracting. Can you BOTH please take it to a discussion page and/or RFC it or something? Constantly taking a rapid escalation path and also in return resorting to insults doesnt help either of you. (Also added to both users Talk pages) Beardybloke (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Link spamming has been reported here. Dgtsyb (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Another false claim like Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Leedryburgh. It's so ironic that claim since you added that link yourself to References! Beardybloke I've asked since the start (see top of page) that someone deal with the issue who knows more about Wikipedia than I. I've requested help against the behavour of Dgtsyb all along. I looked at the RFC page but it was too complicated. But Dgtsyb knows Wikipedia well as he lives on it (but contributes near nil and detracts hugely), so I think he should take it on him and file something. Leedryburgh (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible for interested parties to explain their positions on these links? Beardybloke (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll start and state a position of indifference - I dont mind the links, the book in question is reasonable and a good general reference on SS7 from the couple of dozen pages I've visited. The links to the commercial part of the site are unobtrusive and inoffensive. Beardybloke (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is purely a procedural point: Leedryburgh should never again add any of his links (per WP:COI) and Dgtsyb should never again remove them again (per WP:EDITWAR). There are other editors familiar with SS7 that should be able to handle the link question just fine. In the meantime, we can always use both these editors' help with other telecom stuff besides worrying about these links. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. Agree. Maybe Beardybloke can add the links back in? I see someone else is adding the links back in as we speak but strangely even using my edit summary text. Leedryburgh (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a third party (strange after the false spam claim) is adding the links back in with my text even edit summary text! And it seems user is still removing it even after being asked to leave things alone. Here is my suggestion - someone logged in, adds the links (say Beardybloke) then we can end the saga after months? Leedryburgh (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I see Dgtsyb continues the edit war even after talk said Dgtsyb should never again remove them again. And as ever to make the situation complex (user Dgtsyb seems to throw in complexities if he feels his page ownership is not total), he is having an edit war with a user who is acting like me (the edits I was doing verbatim). Leedryburgh (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathise with you Leedryburgh, but Dgtsyb and the new IP address have now worn me down. Frankly I'm giving up and will consider taking SS7 off my monitor list. The whole thing is frankly infantile and disruptive and I have better things to do in life than continually attempt to discuss things with Dgtsyb and the new guy - they are both obviously getting off on it and their refusal to discuss the issue on the talk page just adds to the disruption. Sorry if this doesnt help you and your attempts to enrich wiki, but with the link to your book in the references section I'd just quit while you're ahead. Beardybloke (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll make one last plea for people to respect the 3RR rule while we attempt to figure out any form of consensus Beardybloke (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to discuss it, although it has been discussed much here already. — Dgtsyb (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, and thank you for engaging - can you explain what your issues with the inclusion of the link are? Aside from COI (which I would circumvent since I have no connection to the page and I believe the links to be useful to a student of SS7 and of use to a reader of the page). The allegations of overt advertising are now pretty much gone and seem to be to have been handled? Can you lay out why you want to keep removing the link? Beardybloke (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link for several reasons:

• First, Talk:SIGTRAN#Third opinion was provided stating that the links were not appropriate in the external links section but were appropriate in a citation. So, I added citations from Lee's book to both articles and added the book as a reference and created a link.

• I agreed to abide by Ludwigs2's proposal to have Lee sanitize his page and Lee (see above) agreed to remove the headers and footers altogether. Ludwigs2 instructed Lee to not readd the links until the pages met with approval (see above also), but he has added them four or five times since then.

• Lee adds the links without discussion. It would be proper to discuss these edits, particularly given the history, before adding them.

• I stopped discussing this directly with Lee several weeks ago. I think that you can see why from personal attacks and the suggestions to ignore them. I wish someone would point out that discussing my spare time, marital status, family orientation and the like is completely inappropriate.

With regard to 41.232.182.119, Lee has been found to make edits from anonymous IP addresses and then refer to those edits as "someone else". See the sockpuppetry case. I don't know whether this is the sitation here, but, it might be an idea to open the sockpuppetry case again. I have notified the admins that were watching that case before.

I'm sorry but it takes three reverts to get the vandalism warning up to the level necessary for an IP block. 41.232.182.119 is sitting at final warning now (and 3RR) and I will re-apply to have the address blocked for vandalism if it reverts or adds again. I think that things should be left the way they are until things can be discussed, don't you? — Dgtsyb (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out more of the history of this. As the pages stand now I see no problem with the book and linking to it, I'm still failing to see what your current issues with it are. Removing a link to a source which is useful for background and referrable material because it contains a small innocuous link to the authors commercial site is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As for the edits they are coming from a user of what appears to be an egyptian ISP, hence the changing address. (its from tedata.net) Beardybloke (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, neither do I, and that is why I added the links (see them right on the top of the Signaling System 7#References and SIGTRAN#References sections. You can click on the book title and it takes you directly to Lee's site. The ISBN also links to the ISBN lookup where you can get a copy of the book from Cisco Press as well. It has been this way for some week or so. I have not removed these and in fact I placed them there. I left it to User:Ludwigs2 to determine whether he wanted to remove those too, because I didn't think the advertising was too obnoxious on last examination. Nevertheless, Lee's agreement was with User:Ludwigs2, as a mediator, not me. But these links directly from the book citation does not seem to satisfy Lee even though it is in preferred encyclopedic form and is more than User:Ludwigs2 would have had it. Instead he persists in inserting a link containing promotional statements at the head of the External links sections of three articles: Signaling System 7, SIGTRAN and more recent IP Multimedia Subsystem. I agree its a waste of time. I would rather be reworking the X.25 article. — Dgtsyb (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time user Dgtsyb has stated the complaint "link containing promotional statements". Up until now it has been the site, and now it is link wording! Rather than discuss Dgtsyb has been blindly removing the link. As I have always requested, Dgtsyb should discuss. Dgtsyb should leave the link and if Dgtsyb wants changes he should post here and say why? I mean what new link wording could Dgtsyb want? Leedryburgh (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to drag myself into the issue of a 3rd IP as it seems the tactics of Dgtsyb to muddy the waters to prevent link insertion. But I have to ask - how can user 41.232.182.119 be vandalising? You wanted the link in References and others including myself state it should be in External Links. So your definition of vandalism is not giving you 100% control of pages it seems. Very democratic ;) Leedryburgh (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with all of the above. User Dgtsyb did not engage in dialogue and my main problem since the start was his actions without explanation even when requested. Instead from the start he vandalised my talk page without anything considerate of dialogue. Anytime I've added the links, memory serves me that it was the result of having modified the link to fit perceived rules and in my edit summary I tried to state why I was adding it in again. As regards more false socket puppet claims, well that is old hat and had never been upheld. As regards personal attacks, it was actually Dgtsyb who began on that path also. The problem is user Dgtsyb feels he has page ownership and tries every tactic to that effect. Allowing the user to bully all others is clearly not in the interests of Wikipedia, particularly in the context of an author making his book available free on the topic and linking to it. And no it is not OK in References with a hyperlink because the book is still sold and your 100% undermining the publisher by incorrectly hyperlinking the ISBN the site. And as regards "I wish someone would point out that discussing my spare time, marital status, family orientation and the like is completely inappropriate" - completely agree however it was a response to the personal attacks started by Dgtsyb and the endless tactics Dgtsyb employs to control pages 100%. Leedryburgh (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the article history and see "00:03, 16 July 2008 A. B. (Talk | contribs) (19,040 bytes) (removing ss7-training.net link per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Leedryburgh and WP:COI; if a disinterested, established editor wants to add it back, feel free to do so.) (undo)". Now it seems 41.232.182.119 would fit that. Why therefore Dgtsyb keeps removing it still, I don't know. Leedryburgh (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You think 41.232.182.119 is a established editor? Leedryburgh, I ask you to achieve consensus about inclusion here, there are many IPs whose only interest is to insert the link. Further insertions without discussion (with consensus!) about inclusion here, will be reverted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. That IP is nothing to do with me and began after Dgtsyb makes a spam claim. His tactic seems to be to pull in new people and throw in some mud so people take 5 steps back. It's like being in Cube 2 - is there a way out? Now there is consensus. But it seems that Dgtsyb wants the link in References now instead of External Links. I've said clearly the latter and why. If anyone disagrees with my reasoning above, let me know, otherwise the consensus is complete again unless Dgtsyb pulls something else new. If another editor would insert the link we could be done? Leedryburgh (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This was my edit summary:

• "removing ss7-training.net link per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Leedryburgh and WP:COI; if a disinterested, established editor wants to add it back, feel free to do so."

These anonymous IPs that have never edited anything else here are hardly "established" editors.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I get that now but that is not to imply the IP changes where mine! So it's just procedure, I just need an editor to add it back in. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Come to think if it can A. B. or someone else on this page add it in so we can be done with this issue? Leedryburgh (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Leedryburgh, just drop the subject. You are not entitled to a link here. If a neutral editor comes along, sees merit to it and adds it in, so be it. Do not push to add that link. Please see the following:

• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing -- further persistence by either party (or IPs) from here on falls in this category.
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing -- guidance for admins on how to handle tendentious editing
• Wikipedia:Canvassing -- i.e., to add this link
• Wikipedia:Edit war -- don't continue with this
• Wikipedia:Sock puppetry -- don't use IPs as surrogates
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles -- neither party owns this article
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

I'll add this all applies to Dgtsyb as well. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK for now I'll add the link, if the description I use is not appropriate then I suggest that it be editted to something appropriate rather than removed wholesale? Beardybloke (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Leedryburgh, I did not mean to imply you were the IP, but the IP is not an established editor, just a single-purpose account.

Beardybloke, on what merit do you think that this link should be on this page? It should not be there only because someone wants it there, it should add to the page (see WP:EL). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

prior to this my comments were based on a quick read of a couple of the pages in the book, they provide clear and concise descriptions of the subject matter. It is also a published book. This whole fiasco has now forced me to read in more detail more of the pages and speed read most of the rest. Let me state up front I have worked with writing, testing and monitoring software for SS7 systems for about 12 years of my 17 year career in telecommunications. The sections of the book I read contain clear and concise descriptions of a number of things that arent clear from the specs (for example the note on CIC alignment in [this chapter] is something I regularly found when I worked with configuring test equipment to run against many manufacturers exchanges. The note on SCCP [here] when used in conjunction with ISUP is one of the few times I see that mentioned in any literature, its something which always puzzles newcomers to the field. The overlap signalling explanation and diagrams [here] are very good, let me assure you that in a monitoring system overlap signalling is an unusual thing to explain to a novice and to get correct in terms of correlation of a single call across multiple ISUP legs across multiple links. I'm beginning to sound like a one-man fan club and that is not my intention but I could go on and on and on. Beardybloke (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure since I just read Mr Dryburgh's bio on his private pages as a result of exploring further, it appears we may have worked for the same company at one time (on the acceSS7 system - though I dont recall his name and we were on different parts of the project - he on protocol capture and me on Call Detail Records (ie protocol correlation) - 100+ people across 3 or 4 global locations worked on this). Beardybloke (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest about the whole thing - leaving it as a large reference, or referencing the paper book and external linking the webpage is fine by me now - either approach is fine as I just want this to come to an end. Beardybloke (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the link is in the references section, there is no need to have it in the external links. So there is no reason to include it there, and any additions of that link in the external link section should, IMHO, be reverted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Beestra please see your talk page. You have removed the link this time added by Beardybloke citing the link was already in References. I made it clear that having it in References hyperlinked to the site as opposed to External undermines the publisher, misleads the public and is highly in accurate as the text not quite match the ISBN in question. As stated above the publisher sells the electronic version in Kindle and Safari formats which are official, not subject to change etc. Hyperlinking from the ISBN references make it seem that the website in question contains a copy as good (in terms of format) and contains exactly the same text. Both are not the case. I've been modifying the text of the one at the external website, updating it etc. So it does not match the ISBN, so it is wrong aside from undermining the publisher, to consider them the same. Can we give consideration therefore to placing it back in External Links and probably out of ethics removing the hyperlink from the References? This issue was solved after months, but now with this new issue coming in the can of worms is open again. Lets close it. Leedryburgh (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

""I've been modifying the text of the one at the external website, updating it etc.""

Lee, you have just identified this as a self-published source and now I must ask that links to it be removed altogether in accordance with WP:SPS. The citations that I added are taken from the Cisco Press published version of the book, not the self-published version. — Dgtsyb (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OH PLEASE! Frankly this is just making me angry now. Its obstructive, combative and verging on bullying. Wikipedia itself in the section you quote has an get-out clause which this clearly comes under for the link in question :

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert 
on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable 
third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information 
in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

This guy is an expert in the field, having a relatively well known published book on the topic. Also the link has previously been published and in terms of updates I would guess (a guess mind you as SS7 is fairly static these days) that the updates are typographical and clarifications at best of some of the material. Beardybloke (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remain objective. A published edition will always be preferrable over the author's self-published work no matter how much of an expert they are. It is because the source needs to be verifiable, not dynamic and changeable. — Dgtsyb (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of advice this is also something I would ask of you. I am being as objective as I possibly can in the face of another random obstacle. This guy is providing a link to his web page, he has jumped through hoops to accomodate the vagaries of a number of editors and now another obstacle gets thrown up. SS7 is not subject to dynamic changes. The major specs for it were published a number of years ago. Any updates in his book would be of an typographical nature and/or clarification of points (Obviously I cant say this for certain without going line by line through the book and web page). Beardybloke (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you need to take a look at the book then: it covers SIGTRAN which changed significantly between 2004 and now. Even the SS7 has changed. — Dgtsyb (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of a very bad analogy the Bible contains the New testament, does that make it any less a reference for the Old Testament? I'm only interested in its inclusion on the SS7 page - I have only dabbled lightly in Sigtran and could comment on its applicability to that area - its not an area I can claim any great expertise in and have never intruded on the editwars on the other pages, it was bad enough on this single one. Like I said in my earlier comment (see below) I'm not going to re-insert the link as edit warring is not what I came to wkipedia for Beardybloke (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We are also discussing the SIGTRAN links and even maybe the IP Multimedia Subsystem links here as well. — Dgtsyb (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - I now officially give up - I refuse to participate in edit warring whether done by the owner of the link or admins. Beardybloke (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you give up (see my comment above) then as you can imagine it is not good for Wikipedia. It means that users like Dgtsyb can keep coming in, dominating pages, firing off false accusations and when the "winning" does not look good, pull in more people, hoping one will stick to create another spanner in the works (like the newly developed issue with Beetstra in relation to References of External Links Section). At the end of the day, would you as a Wikipedia user prefer to have a link to the most authoratative source on a topic free and one that is references in the Wikipedia article? Dgtsyb has put hurdle after hurdle for some reason over this link. Until lately it was the "commercial" nature, then when that was cleared it was the words in the link, when that was cleared, it is now which section it is in. I think principles matter and you should try to hang in there. TKS Leedryburgh (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, it is simple, there is a link to the book in the references section, make that go to the official copy, and then add a link to the online-available copy to that. That is fair to the writers of the original, and to the original publisher, and the availability of an online copy is then also mentioned. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this way? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So when did the ISBN change? See #Putting link back above for the ISBN that was claimed (2004 edition). Also, if Lee has been editing it, it is a WP:SPS and has no place here. — Dgtsyb (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, I made a mistake - like a total webnewb I looked at the page wrong. the new version is largely de-commercialized, and I can't really see any reason to exclude it any longer. (I still think the banners are too large, mind you, but that's an aesthetic judgment, not a content issue...  ;-) ) --Ludwigs2 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dgtsyb, that it is a self-published source does not mean that other, non-involved editors can not include it as being useful. Ludwigs2, I think that, as it is already in the references section (and I presume it has been used to improve the document), it does not have a place also in the external links. That, to me, would smell too promotional, linking/mentioning it once is (more than) enough. The external link is not really necessery (we have the ISBN's), so the document can be found in the readers preferred way, but this is merely a service to the reader (as the external link is to an official online copy). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That is what I thought too, but how can this be an official online copy when it has been editted by its author? Lee represented this online version to me and Ludwigs2 as an exact copy of the ISBN I referenced. Now it is admittedly self-edited. I would call the Cisco Press Kindle book the official online copy an the version at Lee's website as the start of beginnings of a personal essay. Maybe it has some value, but certainly not as a source for citation. — Dgtsyb (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I have to agree with Lee: it needs to be removed from the citation url and placed, say, beside something like so:

• Dryburgh, Lee (2004). Signalling System No. 7 (SS7/C7): Protocol, Architecture, and Services. Indianapolis: Cisco Press. ISBN 1-587-05040-4. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) A version of this book is available online.

Dgtsyb (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I could keep arguing the toss on the SS7 link inclusion for days, but I actually have to work for a living and I will now withdraw from this discussion since I have spent too much time on it over the last 24-48 hours and as its not going anywhere and indeed if I'm allowed to inject a small bit of humour I await obstacle number 76-k(ii) subparagraph 2a [inclusion of alphabetic characters in article] and 92b (ii) [use of the colour blue] now being thrown up. I bid you all good day. I'm not going away just not getting further involved in this issue. Beardybloke (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I've read all the latest comments and I am once again amazed one user has managed to drag so many people in and create a new problem and a new accusation. But lets clear the fog. The issue for what seems months was commercial nature of the link, that was clear in past 24 hours and the link re-added. But now out the blue the argument has came to be whether it is included in the References or External Links. Now I see that in references it has been changed to "Dryburgh, Lee; Jeff Hewitt (2004). Signalling System No. 7 (SS7/C7): Protocol, Architecture, and Services. Indianapolis: Cisco Press. ISBN 1-587-05040-4. Available online as Dryburgh, Lee; Jeff Hewitt (2007). Signaling System No. 7 (Ss7/C7). Indianapolis: Cisco Press. ISBN 978-1587053573." but this is very untrue and worse than before. The publisher as said sells an online edition. Once I got control of the text I modified a couple of places, very slightly, so it can't be classed as an exact copy of the ISBN (ethically speaking). So we really should not as said before be linking to it under an ISBN which it does not match. I can get you the URL for the paid version from the publisher which you can read online and that can be in the References. But the site in question should be in External Links. Can someone add it back and end this months of saga PLEASE for the sake of everyone? Leedryburgh (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. because I'm tired of seeing this debate pop up in my watchlist, and I'm satisfied that this version of the online book is properly decommercialized. I'm going to resolve this problem myself and ask everyone to let it go after I do. I have one question: LEE - do you want this in the references section, or the external links section? one or the other, you can't have both. as soon as Lee responds, I will put the link in as I see fit (on this page and SIGTRAN), and I'll ask you both to respect my decision on this utterly minor dispute so that we can all move on to other things. --Ludwigs2 02:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It will need to be in the External Links section - at least the hyperlink to the site in question. As for References in my opinion it's wrong to hyperlink to the site in question as it is not an exact reflection of the electronic publisher ISBN version (I'm fixing acknowledged errata at "my" online version so it's not good to call it by an ISBN now) - I don't want to mislead and confuse people etc. 80.108.90.135 (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you said above, Lee, that the current References citation is worse than before. The website is as you say based on the 2004 edition and not the 2007 edition. And, if, as you say, it is only '"very slightly"' modified from that version, there is little reason separate it from the title of the 2004 citation. I have reverted Beetstra's change. It may not be quite what you want yet, but I think you will agree that it is better than it is now. — Dgtsyb (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

---

alright, I've added this to the external links section of this page and SIGTRAN. it might require some tweaking, but I hope we can call this issue closed now. let me know if there are any further problems. --Ludwigs2 02:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot remove the book citation from References section because it has citations that reference it. Reverting removal of reference. — Dgtsyb (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now you have the problem that there are two references to the book from the article, both for SIGTRAN and for Signaling System 7. This is unnecessary. Please remove your addition to External References. — Dgtsyb (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I hardly think that you can claim concensus on placing the link in external references. Talk:SIGTRAN#Third opinion says that it is inappropriate in the External link section but appropriate where cited. Beestra just reverted a change just yesterday attempting to place it in the External links section. You do not seem care one way or the other because you simlpy asked Lee which way he wanted it. In fact, it appears that the only editor wanting it in the External links section is Lee. Therefore, I would say the rough concensus swings the opposite way to your edit, and I ask you to revert it on those grounds. — Dgtsyb (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

why did you wait until after I made the change, when I clearly gave you the opportunity to discuss the matter earlier (in fact, you responded to my post above before I made the change, and mentioned nothing about this). I feel like you're just making trouble for the sake of making trouble here. at any rate, I gave resolving this issue my best shot. now it's up to you guys. --Ludwigs2 01:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you only asked Lee to respond. Dgtsyb (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, with your recent change, the references to (Dryburgh 2004) on both Signaling System 7 and SIGTRAN articles are now broken. The edition that needs to be in the References section of both pages needs to be the 2004 edition, not the 2007 edition. That is, the 2007 edition is not referenced. Please remove or comment the 2007 reference and uncomment the 2004 reference. You might want to remove the url tag from the 2004 citations if that was your purpose. Dgtsyb (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

to your first point, all I can say is - be bold! it's better to address a problem in advance than to revert afterwards, always.

I'll go look to see what you mean by 'broken'; I didn't see any problems when I did it, but I may have goofed. per the other, though, I personally think it's best to make a reference to the most current version of the published book, but point out that the online version is a reference to an older edition. plus, I wanted to make sure there was only one link to the site, in the external references section, and not one in each section. if that doesn't make sense to you, though, what would you prefer? --Ludwigs2 20:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 13 and 14 on Signalling System 7 and Footnote 3 on SIGTRAN reference pages in (Dryburgh 2004) in Harvard notation. They, therefore, need Dryburgh 2004 in the References section for the footnotes to link to it. Dryburgh 2007 is not referenced. Dgtsyb (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, that makes sense, and I think I fixed it. check it to make sure... is there anything else that still bothers you about this (because I'm happy to make more changes if it will get us to a resolution). --Ludwigs2 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that fixes the links, thank you. Because you asked, one more change and I would be quite happy: move the link from the External references section up beside the Reference. Such as, instead of “Link to online version of text below,” perhaps “[http://www.ss7-training.net/ Full HTML version of (Dryburgh 2004).]” to the right of the reference. See WP:EL#References and citation (source links should not be placed in an external links section). Better still, move it all the way back to the url tag. See WP:CS#Including external links (webpage links can be added to the title part of the citation with ISBN added when possible). Then I'm done. Dgtsyb (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not unwilling, but I'm hesitant. it seems to me that the online version of the book is primarily being offered as an external link, independent of its use as a reference. references are to substantiate quotes given within the article; external links are (literally) links to external sources for information not present in the article. since this source is being used both ways, that causes some confusion. I thought this dual presence was the correct way to resolve the problem, but I'm willing to consider otherwise. let's see what uninvolved editors think, if any care to answer. --Ludwigs2 19:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably considered more of a link-nazi than most of the spam-fighting team at WikiProject Spam, but if the neutral editors here like the link they should use it. Not only that, but use it more than once if they think it appropriate. Take a look at our Layout guideline and see the Standard appendices and descriptions section. It defines multiple sections that can go at the end of an article:

• See also
• Notes
• References
• Further reading
• External links

I think you want to put the footnotes in a "Notes" section. Then if you think that the entire electronic book is useful and credible (it certainly looks so to me), put a citation to it in a "References" or "Further Reading" section. To me, it looks very useful to have an entire Cisco Press book available for free to access on the subject.

Understand that getting this exactly right is something editors worry about when they're putting an article up for a Featured Article Review, the gold standard for editorial pickiness. I wasn't aware of the fine distinctions between these types of sections myself before this week and I have >20k edits on this project.

The other comment that I'll make is that this is certainly not worth squabbling over. The neutral editors (not Dgtsyb or Leedryburgh) should pick a course of action, be BOLD and do it.

Thanks for your work and patience, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The correct title of this article is Signaling System No. 7

Why do we need the intro apology why not just use Signaling System No. 7? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirgorpster (talk • contribs) 03:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the correct title is Signalling System No. 7, with to l's. It appears spelt this way, even on the ANSI standards (the normal American spelling otherwise being Signaling but incorrect in this case). But you are correct in that it is typically written SS7, C7, or CCS7, never with the #. Be bold: remove the apology. — Dgtsyb (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)