Talk:FreeSWITCH

message: Could use a lot more info, or at least links to related telephony articles.  After hearing about FreeSwitch, I came looking to find out what exactly it did, what it competes against/replaces, and how "switches" or whatever they're called fit in the general operations of a telephone service.  Maybe I was a bit optimistic, but that might be a useful starting place for improving this, or related telephony articles.Thomas B 16:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look closely, you'll also see that I had the Digium article removed as well (tagged as advertisement and subsequently merged into Asterisk), so please don't suggest bias here. If an article is written such that it appears to be promoting a product or a project, it should be tagged as an advertisement until its re-written in a neutral fashion.  FreeSWITCH is still written in this fashion. If you feel Asterisk is written as such, feel free to tag it as well. Calltech 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments here using 4 tildes (~) at the end of your statement.  WP is not a forum to promote your project.  Simply listing features like a marketing brochure or website is promotional.  The article should be encylopedic, providing the reader with historical data and also provide information that lets the reader know why it is noteworthy.  It should also provide the project's pros and cons from unbiased third-parties.  This needs to come from neutral editors, not Single-purpose accounts who have an affiliation with the project.  So far the edits on this talk page all appear to come from such accounts. Calltech 16:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a neutral editor, and I've added a comparison section to place FreeSWITCH wrt other offerings.  I don't think the page does read much like an advert, and would suggest that the "this looks like advertising" tag ought to go. Daveknell 08:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly suggest that you read the guidelines for WP before posting comments such as the ones above, particularly WP:NPA.  You should also read the warning automatically posted at the top of this page.  I am assuming you are very new to Wikipedia.  Abusive comments do not win consensus nor support, are not tolerated, and are a sure path to getting your editing privileges revoked along with the articles you are promoting.  Calltech 18:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Improvement 

message: Content intentionally removed (again, but thanks for saying I dont matter as a contributor by readding it and sending me a message implying that I didnt realize I removed it) because it no longer applies to the page its talking about.  I thought I made it clear that it was removed for that reason, but aparently saying 'no longer applies' was not clear.  So now I am typing a longer paragraph to indicate that I do in fact know that content was deleted, and that the content that was deleted does not appear to be relevant anymore since the 'problem' has ended.  As such only new suggestions about be placed here, and not a historical copy of what was a prior suggestion.  The determination for why the information was no longer relevant was based on the fact that its not being tagged the way it was thus the comments about tagging it and proof indicating the tagging was biased dont really belong anymore.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk • contribs) 
:I have referred the actions of this user to WT:WPSPAM#Newbie briankwest (aka 86.92.134.171) gone wild.  His latest removal of the talk page to this article and overide of an admin's revert demonstrate a lack of understanding of Wikipedia and its guidelines. Calltech 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  86.92.134.171 comment 

message: Given the lack of third-party, reliable sources, I think the article should be trimmed back to a stub. --Ronz 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are you saying there are no third party sources out there? That would seem to support Ronz's statement, would it not?  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No what he is saying is that when 3rd parties are linked (see the article list below that I posted) they are promptly removed as spam or "self promotion".--Silik0nJesus 20:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub?

message: I'm a freeswitch contributor and am surprised this page is getting flagged as potential spam.  Its an open source project under the MPL.  Anyone can use the product on an unlimited basis, totally gratis.  Its almost like saying the MediaWiki software page is spam.  This comment is hereby licensed under a dual GFDL and FUYW license.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.43.117 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an open source community project - not spam 

message: Yes FreeSWITCH exists, yes there are multiple people that have contributed to it.  No its not commercial as such the current banner 
  The creator of or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article.
  Due to issues of maintaining neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise 
  that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection. If this applies to your 
  edits, you are advised to collaborate with independent editors via the article's talk page.
is placed by someone with an aparent conflict of interest.  Namely calltech has sought to remove any VoIP related articles that are not asterisk.  OpenSER, Yate, and Callweaver all were deleted after his actions to mark them for deletion.  The constant war of tagging the page that he is engaged in, when its clear he is showing a bias towards one open source product over another is a clear conflict of interest.  
Now lets look at this for just a second.  FreeSWITCH is open source, its free there is nothing to sell.  As such promotion other than stating its features (what defines FreeSWITCH) is not really being done, because it cant.  Second, there isnt a business connection since again its free.  This leaves a "close personal connection" to the software.  I find it insane that anyone would suggest that users and the occasional developer cannot comment on the software.  If they are excluded who is left to actually say what something is and what it does, and why that matters.  
If you look at historical people, those that know anything about them would have some personal connection since they would have to if they spent all that time researching that persons life to be able to comment on it.  Virtually any subject there is some type of close personal connection to the content generated or the content has absolutely no meaning since it was written by someone totally uninformed about what they are writing on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why the malice? 

message: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenH323
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAX
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softswitch
Those are in languages which arent spoken by myself or brian.  I actually dont know who added those references, but it does go to show that someone else is listing the software - granted there isnt a language specific version yet for those languages, but they are in some sense a 3rd party not affiliated with this discussion listing FreeSWITCH™
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mellentm/YATE  links to FreeSWITCH™ and that is from a YATE person, aparently they are only allowed to have content about YATE after the 2 deletions on a user page.  As you will see that user is not one that has done anything on the FreeSWITCH™ page but is in a different open source project.
For these reasons I dont think a stub entry is appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  others who havent posted here (afaik) have posted on related things 

message: This best fits into the  region, as it also includes technology. Also, this would be my first time posting an RfC, so please tell me if I've done something incorrectly. James SugronoContributions 22:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well, if it has arisen over edit conflicts, then this really should never have happened. The page has been semi-protected, so 86.92.134.171, you will have to register for an account to continue editing this page. If there's an edit conflict when I edit, what I generally do is just take what I was going to put it, and add it at the end. There's no need to copy and paste the entire lower box into the top - doing so ommits the changes that were made while you were editing. James SugronoContributions 14:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: It has been suggested somewhere that by listing limitations or negatives of a project can be better than comparing it to other projects.  I am readding the limitations section that was deleted.  Deleting them also makes it look more biased which is something the article aparently needs to avoid  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trixter ie (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would need sources and would need to avoid synthesis of primary sources as well. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Limitations section should go; it doesn't add anything - the comparison section tells you that you need to write your own Voicemail app; the bit about some people finding XML hard is neither here nor there.  That leaves the lack of a GUI, which hardly warrants a section on its own.Daveknell 16:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some others that have listed some limitations, I suggest it stay at least for a little while to give people time (it hasnt even been there for 24 hours) to add to it.Trixter ie 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  detracting statements 

message: In this posting, editor Matt Vile offered two new links that appear to be reliable sources. He admits to having a COI, and asked me to post them here for your consideration:
a Globe and Mail story from a year ago and an Information Week story.
They are both reliable sources and they do mention FreeSWITCH. Unless I hear objections, I will go ahead and add them to the article. EdJohnston 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two links that should be considered as sources for the article 

message: The following article, written by me and published in the premier issue of open source telephony magazine which is run by the same individual who is employed by Digium, a vendor of telephony hardware,  explains my motivation for starting the project.
To comply with the guidelines, rather than post the article directly,  I would ask someone to please read it and use it for information on the FreeSWITCH article.
http://www.freeswitch.org/node/60
Anthony.minessale 21:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Source 

message: I plan to remove the three orange boxes at the top of this article in a little while.  I've read the article, and while it's certainly not the finest example of a Wikipedia article, I don't think it's as bad as those warnings imply.  If people disagree, could you please show here what you think needs to be changed?  Thank you.  kmccoy (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with their removal. Daveknell 07:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of tags 

message: According to http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Mod_voicemail , the statement that FreeSWITCH does not have voicemail under limitations should be modified, as this module has been added. Vile2007 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations Adjustment 

message: I am posting this here first, to avoid any COI claims, however, there is an ISO distribution of FreeSWITCH which shows alternate sources for the project, or something.  Dunno how yet it would be worked in, but wanted to get feedback on whether stuff like this should be here.  http://www.trixswitch.org - I have absolutely no affiliation with them of trixbox (the asterisk version they do) I had my name first. Trixter ie 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not look like a reliable source by Wikipedia standards; the site appears to be anonymous. Not sure how you were planning to make use of this site. Under some conditions web sources are OK; see WP:WEB. This usually happens when the site is already famous or widely recommended. EdJohnston 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know exactly how either which would be a prerequisite.  On the surface it would seem like advertising, however the intent was to show that there is more notability with the FreeSWITCH project since others are taking it and extending it and shaping it into different things.  There is a distributions section on the asterisk page, although it has no references to anything and I did not see any discussion over that in their talk page, and I dont really feel like sifting through years worth of edits in the history to see if there ever were any.  I am only bringing that up since it has been deemed a 'good page'.  So to continue, and still just musing about the idea right now, would it be acceptable to create a distributions section, similar to the asterisk one, and if so would it further be acceptable to list which ones actually exist?  The biggest point with that would be to say if people are taking the base software and making a distribution out of it, or using it as the core communication system in some other project, it does go to add to notability, since they wouldnt bother if there wasnt something they saw in the project. To counter the argument that they are an anonymous webpage, the point isnt so much 'hey there is this group' but rather that the iso exists, and that its done by a seperate group, which is available for download on their page, anonymous or not. If that makes sense.80.57.225.40 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Information 

message: The links below clearly show that freeswitch uses the sofia sip library.  Do not remove this content from the page.  Thanks.
*http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Sofia
*http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Sofia_Configuration_Files  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfedyk (talk • contribs) 10:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sofia-SIP is part of FreeSWITCH, don't remove references to it. 

message: FreeSWITCH's IRC-link may be import for FreeSWITCH, but definitively not necessary to explain this article. As Wikipedia is no directory (see WP:DIRECTORY), the link could be seen as spam here. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC Link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on FreeSWITCH. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908103008/http://www.prleap.com/pr/88279/ to http://www.prleap.com/pr/88279/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080810000114/http://www.freeswitch.org/node/122 to http://www.freeswitch.org/node/122
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819123414/http://www.freeswitch.org/node/130 to http://www.freeswitch.org/node/130
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120608065731/http://www.cluecon.com/presentation/keynote-address-2012/ to http://www.cluecon.com/presentation/keynote-address-2012/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920033724/http://freeswitch.org/node/410 to http://freeswitch.org/node/410
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022090650/http://www.jsonline.com/business/64684137.html to http://www.jsonline.com/business/64684137.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123010153/http://freeswitch.org/node/235 to http://www.freeswitch.org/node/235
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130705172509/http://wiki.sangoma.com/Sangoma-Media-Transcoding to http://wiki.sangoma.com/sangoma-media-transcoding
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified