Talk:SIGTRAN

message: It think it is beneficial to copy the same counter that was posted to discussion on Talk:Signaling System 7#External Links below.
Response to : 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)
replies: text: 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 13:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above was posted by Leedryburgh (talk) and not (non-existent at the time) user User:LeeDryburgh.  Please sign your posts with your true username. Dgtsyb (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: The above was posted by Leedryburgh (talk) and not (non-existent at the time) user User:LeeDryburgh.  Please sign your posts with your true username. Dgtsyb (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter 

message: It's not appropriate if in the "external links" section; however, I think it would be a good idea to put the link in the cite tag where the book is being cited. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the request for a third opinion was made using an invalid user name, possibly to obscure the contents of User talk:Leedryburgh.  Dgtsyb (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Please see the business linking FAQ and conflict of interest.  Not only did this user add a link to their commercial site for a book that the user claims to have authored, and without asking on this talk page, the edit removed three existing links and constituted deletion vandalism.  Also the link was added and links vandalised using a suspected IP sock puppet which has been reported here.  Also note that the book is not cited by the article. — Dgtsyb (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

text: This issue is the same as for the Signaling System 7 topic so please move discussion to Talk:Signaling System 7#third_opinion so that there is a single discussion rather than two parallel discussions. However a brief not to JeremyMcCracken; thanks for your time. I'd like to point out that the book is not available via normal means so ISBN is not much use - I did inform Dgtsyb  of this on a number of occasions. Lets move the discussion over to Talk:Signaling System 7#third_opinion, thanks. LeeDryburgh (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3O|Third opinion]]