Talk:Colocalization

[Untitled]

I think that reference to Stork & Li is very generic and unclear. I left it at the end of the article hoping that someone with more knowledge about it would provide an explanation. Default007 14:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Four references to the same author are too much, imho. --134.147.252.139 (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Advertising

I've cleared up some of the mess made by contributors 210.142.243.130 and 123.254.46.22 - removing all links to software bar one's own is a pretty clear violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING, bordering on WP:SPAM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by North5 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done this again. If a contributor thinks references are not relevant, or objects to my removal of spammy links, please discuss the issue on this talk page. North5 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

References to articles by Zinchuk et al.

I note that there are four references to articles by Zinchuk et al. here, and that there appears to have been a campaign of spam by sock- or meat-puppets at CoLocalizer Pro and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoLocalizer Pro by or on behalf of Zinchuk and Grossenbacher-Zinchuk, the co-authors of CoLocalizer Pro (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sleepy-molly). Could someone with more knowledge of this topic than I have check whether it is reasonable to include so many references to the same author? 82.9.185.151 (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article it appears that it's full of playground battles between academics trying to push their own software here. You guys are suppose to be clever, so can't you just grow up and realise that such behaviour just diminishes your reputations and, more seriously, could in some cases amount to the sort of academic misconduct that would, if someone chose to report it to your employers and to academic publishers, lose you your jobs and make you unemployable elsewhere? 82.9.185.151 (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)