Talk:Sipgate

Updates needed

Please note:

• sipgate has launched a U.S. product called "sipgate one" recently (www.sipgate.com)
• in the abstract about sipgate's struggle in court with T-Mobile sipgate is misspelled "siphone" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragontalk (talk • contribs) 06:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

This article is not notable. It does not cite any verifiable references. (Pasca 02:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

Notability

I assert that sipgate meets the notability requirements for companies since it has received coverage in multiple independent print and Internet publications including The Times, The Independent and The Guardian in the UK[1] and also in Germany [2] and Austria [3]. There was at least one link to such a publication included in the article, but the site went subscription-only making it unsuitable to be linked to from Wikipedia. —David Johnson [T|C] 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This page isn't going to get deleted under speedy or prod. If it gets taken to AfD it might. BJ^Talk 18:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is still in great need for reliable secondary sources that meet article notability guidelines. I believe those exist, but they need to be collected and used in meaningful way. Kbrose (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Section

Needs to be rewritten to sound more neutral or removed entirely. Also, all claims need to be verified by 3rd party and reliable sources -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed this once again, for this very reason. It's either original research or pure speculation. Neither of which have a place on WP. Kbrose (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Let it be noted that anonymous user 90.197.118.83 has started to engage in edit warring over the removal of his unsourced and unqualified edits of this article that have been already criticized, identified, flagged by two reputable editors, and has not engaged in discussions regarding his edits on this talk page. Kbrose (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The section can be easily substantiated, simply searching a well known search engine or viewing the uk-telecom-voip news groups shows a number of users openly discussing "trading" of sipgate's numbers. One can only come to the own conclusion as to why Kbrose does not wish to have the Abuse Section within the article. It should be noted that a 3RR Warning was given to Kbrose on the users talk page. It should also be noted that Kbrose then reverted the page breaking the 3RR warning, and refusing to enter the discussion. 90.197.118.83 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously total nonsense. Searching on Google, and online news groups don't substantiate content. Cite reliable sources or this stuff is bound to be removed again. Just a matter of time. Kbrose (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Kbrose you are clearly concerned more than the average person about this section content. And with your threats of "this stuff is bound to be removed again. Just a matter of time." Shows that you have absolute no regard for this discussion page and are set for removing the content at your first opportunity. It could be argued that you to not wish this information to be made public that free SIPGATE Numbers are traded amongst people who operate as so called VoIP Providers selling the numbers to people. Within the UK's VoIP Trade Association it has been known for a number of years that the SIPGATE model was being abused by a small number of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.118.83 (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about any section in any article that is speculation. I just happen to have this page on my watchlist and removed content that was clearly unfit for inclusion in WP because of WP policies. You, on the other hand seem to have an agenda to broadcast this message without proof. If you can provide reliable citations that stand up to scholarly scrutiny and write about it in an intelligible fashion, I have no objection to any content. But WP is not a place to post accusations of dubious trade practices that you would like more people to know. Please educate yourself about contributing material to WP. You will agree. Kbrose (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Kbrose your personal insults are duly noted. The documented evidence you so crave will be supplied and referenced. 90.197.118.83 (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

---

This has been a long time known fact in the VoIP world something I have personally been involved with for a number of years. It was first reported in 2004 and Sipgate did take action in changing how numbers are allocated to accounts. This however does not surprise me it is still an ongoing issue. Especially the fact that some deny it happens. I have to agree on this instance with the anonymous user that it is discussed openly in VoIP News groups. How ever I think it is going to be quite difficult around obtaining good and sound evidence as Internet Forums and/or News Groups is no more reliable as is Wikipedia for source of reference. Nor do we see any of people who are involved in the reselling of sipgate’s services forthcoming in publically admitting to it. It just isn’t going to happen, and unless it does happen, it is almost impossible to prove otherwise.

Kbrose, your personal attacks on another WP user is unwarranted and you should be ashamed of yourself in lowering your professionalism to personal insults and attacks against someone’s education and knowledge. //Melonite (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is beginning to become personal and there is no reason for it to be. The Wikipedia rules on sources (WP:SOURCES are very clear. If the statements in the Abuse section cannot be referenced to sources, and the sources are not considered on of the invalid links listed in WP:ELNO, then they should be removed. -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 01:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I do this myself have 9 accounts with DID numbers. It might be imoral but it isn't abuse. Im just making use of a free service and incorporate Sip Gates numbers into my SIP gateway. 149.254.224.2 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether this occurs is hardly the concern here, it must be reliably documented to be notable and referenced to be included in WP. Kbrose (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is a concern here, it is what the form of abuse is about. You can not simply change the goal posts as and when you feel fit. I and a number of other people are compiling the evidence needed, unfortunately some of us do not have as much time as you appear to have to "police" WP. Kbrose do you have something to hide by any chance that you do not wish this system of abuse to be made public, are you infact one of the people who registers a number of times to the Sipgate service and requests DID numbers which you then resell to your clients or use for personal use on your "home network"? 90.194.37.147 (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies demand that this material be deleted. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence and do not add this or revert again without providing credible references at the same time. Kbrose (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, such material can never be accepted. The repeated reinsertion of it from multiple ip addresses after warnings constitutes an abuse. I have consequently semi-protected to limit editing for a time to those with accounts. At present the article has no POV problems, and the company is notable, so I removed the tags. As for the court cases, surely something has been happening since Sept 08, since open iPhone access in Europe is an ongoing issue. DGG (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No longer offering new service?

The sign-up page current reads "Unfortunately, due to issues outside of our control we are not able to offer our services to new customers anymore." with no further details, and the Help page now gives a 404. Is this service being discontinued?