Looks like single purpose account vandalized with links to pay to join subscription site. have done my best to restore. All external links remaining should now be reference material sites. will add some notability links.YSWT (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I have totally cleaned this article out. Pricing information like "SRP $69; sold direct by netManage for $19.95" (yes, strangely enough this is also read outside of the US!) is plain advertising, and texts like 'and is available free at the EccoPro Users' Group website', excessive linking to yahoo groups, inline linking of pages which should be internal links, pointing to more information etc. etc. etc. do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Please have a good read through our policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing this article. The SRP $69 ... is HISTORIC PRICING INFO. the program has not been sold since 1997 was released for FREE and is available for FREE on the official usergroup website. so (A) it is not advertising, it is important historic information about the software-- how much it cost when it was released in 1996, etc. Please read our policies and guidlines. but more important PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY EDITS. Vandalizing articles is not helpful. if you have any specific guideline in mind, please let's talk about it. YSWT (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though this was made clear to you Beetstra, you continue to remove the info and the references to it, (as well as other references material, etc.) since you are 100% ignorant on the subject of this article, your 'play' with the material is neither helpful nor appropriate. What may or may not seem 'relevant' to someone 100% ignorant of a subject is not a proper basis for making editorial decisions. You should work on the self control to contribute on subjects you have first invested the effort to research.!!!! YSWT (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: happy to discuss any issue, and maybe you can point out something missed. With equal import, maybe you also need to sit down with the guidelines again. "Exceptions (i.e. sites that can be both references and External Links) include an official site of the article's subject, or a domain specifically devoted to the article's subject which contains multiple subpages". The external sites listed are direct references eg., that a small fix can allow linking directly to file, and to devoted subject sites of multiple pages. The EXPRESS reference rule allows BOTH reference (in-line) and External Link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YSWT (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit this article further, as I have a long-past relationship with Netmanage that still makes me feel a bit WP:COI about touching this, other than the purely procedural edits I've previously made. I will say:

• This article is a mess and I agree that User:Beetstra's edits are substantial improvements. not enough, but steps in the right direction.
• Edits are not vandalism, and unfounded accusations of vandalism as made by YSWT violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.
• Pimping a free site is just outside the scope of Wikipedia as pimping a commercial site. TJRC (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC), out.[reply]

As TJRC says, pimping a free site is just as much spamming as is that for a commercial site. We are writing an encyclopedia here!

• The pricing information is unreferenced, America centered. And I do not believe it is thát important, every old product had a price. You will see it more often not mentioned in an article, than that it is there, and when it is there, it generally gets removed as well.
• The article is completely hung on the information on the yahoo group, it is not substantially referenced to independent sources.
• The mere existence of the program does not give it notability, why is this program notable, why does Wikipedia has to write about it?
• Inline links are NOT references in this way. They should link to an internal page, see WP:EL vs. WP:CITE.
• Sentences like 'see [htp://www.example.org the blog]' are also not references, they are simply tunneling people away. Moreover, they are not a proper source for this, have a read through WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:FOOT (hint: they are not independent!).

The only place where the yahoo group may have a place is in the external links, all others have to be converted to wikilinks, or to plain text. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you are wrong. Please become familiar with the link policies of this wiki. The official user group is appropriate for IN LINE LINKING. YSWT (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am, don't worry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please, don't call this vandalism, and don't shout, that is indeed close to violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, I~it almost looks like that I am here the only independent editor looking at it. May I suggest you seek input from a Wikipedia:WikiProject? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* also note: Does not seem you are 'independent'. Seems you have an agenda. You didn't read article and 'speed' cut the price thinking it was a 'sales pitch' or an advertisement. You stated that explicitly. Ok, we all make mistakes, but- Instead of admitting that you made a mistake-- you've tried to 'prove' how right you are, and have made up other excuses to show that 'you were right'. It is beyond ridiculous for you to delete the historic product pricing on the ground it was listed in Dollars, and non-Americans read the wiki. Worse, instead of trying to improve the article and helping to find references for those statements that need citations, you 'speed' edited out the citations which were included to support the article's assertions.

Beetstra this article has been worked on by a LOT of people over a long time. If you want to help IMPROVE it, fantastic. but that is not what you're doing-->

1. Nothing intended personally or as insult but am not sure you have a full concept of what an encyclopedia is. Citing sources for the statements contained in the text is not "Pimping" other websites. If the text says JOE X is now an attorney in XXX city, reference to website to establish that fact is a REFERENCE, not a PIMP for that attorney. The price in 1997 is a reference, not a sales pitch. By removing ALL those REFERENCES you're not saving the wiki from 'pimping', your gutting the encyclopedia by removing the citations to the source of the statements contained.

2. "the pricing information is unreferenced, America centered. And I do not believe it is thát important". Should not delete unreferenced material, should mark it for reference. You want to delete historic pricing because is 'america centered'. Are you serious ?

3. Removing notability references and then complaining about notability is article vandalism. If you won't admit that is what happened then you're not being clear headed or unbiased. And, Yes, just because a product exists does not make it notable. But if it was the world's #1 selling PIM, and if it has been been the subject of print articles in newspapers, etc., then the subject is notable. Did you not see the print article references ? Do you think maybe an encyclopedia should only carry articles on 'current events' and what was the #1 software 15 years ago is 'history' and not notable today ?? Ie., you think 'history' has no place in an encyclopedia ?

4. Asking someone to politely stop vandalizing is 'uncivil' but removing 8 references to notability and then seeking article deletion for non-notabilty is 'civil'? With no discussion YOU decide that historic pricing is 'america centered' and therefore YOU decide it can't be in the article ? An article worked on by a multitude of editors for YEARS. ?? Again, are you serious ??

5. Essentially now all you did was to go through and delete references in the article. That's not vandalism ? For example.. the statement that some feature can be enabled with a FIX. WHAT IS YOUR REFERENCE FOR STATING THAT ?? Since YOU removed the reference there is none. In fact, you left the article without reference to all kinds of statements. That is not helpful. Am going to go through and try to fix the damage when have time.

6. You seem to be only a DESTRUCTIVE agent. looking to destroy. If there aren't reference for the pricing why don't you spend some time on the web and SEE IF YOU CAN FIND SOME. That would be helpful. But then again, that would take more effort than removing the references from an article and marking it as 'lacking references'. YSWT (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is nothing personal. But you are not citing, have you actually read WP:CITE and WP:RS? Saying 'it can be downloaded here' is not referencing, saying 'it can be downloaded here^[1] is also not referencing, you need índependent sources! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you are confusing notibility sources with reference sources. Additionally the product is by Netmanage, so references to product features etc., can be from Netmanage. Also reference from 3rd party info sources is 100% proper and helpful when citing features, fact, etc. Just reciting fact without reference is not helpful here. Would be helpful if you'd re-insert the mass of references you deleted. Thanks! YSWT (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not, see WP:RS, the homepage of a company is not a reference for their work. Maybe a specific page on their webpage might do, but it is certainly better to find an independent source. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. No, the pricing is not encyclopeadic. Nowhere. On any article. Or it must be something that is really specifically notable or controversial. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What basis do you have for saying that ? How much something cost and when is significant. Moreover, notability (which is not an issue with historic pricing) is not an issue for content. If the content is topical and referenced it is appropriate. Editing articles on subject you know nothing about is not so helpful-- other than it was helpful to remove spam links which were inserted. That is helpful and doesn't require knowledge of the subject. But a good article is not going to result from edits by ignorant contributors. I would make a mess of an article on a subject I was ignorant on, why do you think you're different ? YSWT (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See other articles. And please take care with personal attacks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. I did not remove any notability references. As there are none. All the links to company websites and forums are not, I repeat, not proper sources. None of them are independent. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of candor suggests lack of objectivity on your part. At any rate, despite your attempts to the contrary, notability is no longer an issue with this article. Or are you not willing to acknowledge even that ? YSWT (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... Well, see the comments by Johnuniq below. The independent references hardly establish notability. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. I have not sought for deletion (though I thought about it shortly this morning). Yes, what we are doing here is not vandalising. And again, that is not why I deleted the pricing information. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least you admit that. You deleted all sorts of references, including reference supporting statement that "Perez has returned to law practice as a criminal defense attorney in Bellevue, Washington.". You even de-linked the netmanage internal wiki reference. Have no idea what you motives are but delinking internal wiki links, and culling essentally all of an articles external references is article vandalism. YSWT (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are, again, not references that establish notability. Yes, I saw that statement 'Perez has returned to law practice as a criminal defense attorney in Bellevue, Washington.' .. I wonder what that does in this article, that does not tell anything about the software.

5. No, it is not, and I did not. Wow, we have already 3 points here saying the same, you do not have independent sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oh, 4. I am not destroying, you're not independently referencing data. The way you write it, it reads as an advertisement. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't write the article. Second a valid reference *could* be written with POV that should best be re-writeen without POV. That is legit. It is not legit to remove the information and the reference to it. YSWT (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not the first to consider that the article is not notable, I am not the first to note that the tone of the article is inappropriate, etc. etc. And it is certainly legit if the information should not be here in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now please, the only place where the yahoo groups may be having a good place is in the external links section .. and even there. Please read the guidelines, read the external links guideline, and read 'what wikipedia is not' and what wikipedia is. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to understand. While the group *as a group* may be appropriate link, actual contents of the forum may be appropriate *reference* for assertions such as the number of members active in the user group, for assertions about what users say about the software, etc. Let's say the article asserts a relevant fact, 'there are 1000+ members of the programs new user support group', that fact needs a reference. The Yahoo page listing the active members for the group provides reference for the stated assertion. YSWT (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, anyone can say anything on a forum, a forum is never a reliable source, and the number of active members in the user group does hardly say anything about the software. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra, this is more example of the problem with you trying to edit material you are totally ignorant about. Link to a Yahoo page which shows the number of members of a group (and its start date, and # of posts) is a credible reference for all of those facts. Moreover, part of the history/story of Ecco relates to user reactions and feelings about the program. User feelings and reactions expressed in forums is a proper reference for that. Now, the article should report FACTS and should not be a 'research' project, so the 'feelings/reactions' should be no more than a sentence or sentence fragment in the article. But the point is topical especially on software with a 'cult' following and it needs a reference. Keep in mind, not attempting to use form to establish notability, but instead to reference other issue. Or, for example, if user in form posts a reference showing a particular fix or application, reference to that fix is appropriate to that post in a forum. More important, since the forum in official home of the program/fee extensions the *reference* to capabilities, formats, etc., will be to the forum, just as other links would be to microsoft, etc.YSWT (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently saw someone clipped a 'looks like advertisement' tag on the wiki. Eh? Sounds too cool & exiting to be 'objective'. But, the program *is* cool and exciting. Its FREE. So, unless there is some mis-statement, or misleading or something, does not seem like advert to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.118.54 (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A big issue (for this article and in general):

• Reference to SP2 breaking install, mentions alternate solution that I believe is only available at Compusol and after payment of a small fee. This represents a substantial barrier to entry by users who would like to do a test drive. We have a “vital” interest in keeping the product and unique features available to new users, because while Ecco may be showing its age, some people are leaving the ranks and new blood .would be good. While Ecco is doomed in the long-term, its unique abilities need to be on display for as long as possible so that we can hope for the development of a supported product with the same power

• Totally FREE SP2 and Vista EZ install solution is available at http:Forums.EccoMagic.com (*ABSOLUTELY NO MEMBERSHIP FEE*!!)

• FREE extension available at the 'new' Ecco_Pro forum even allows running exclusively from USB...

Additional Note from an Anonymous User:

I added a description of Ecco's columns-and-outline use that, I hope, is fairly clear without giving Wikipedia users a full user manual. But this page could use some good illustrative graphics.

Need:

• list of support sites (usually at the bottom of the page,

• a graphic of outline with columns with some data – possibly Will Ussery’s GTD template since that is a hot topic.

• A simple high level explanation of columns and the power they give

• a list of common problems and references or info on solution (reference compusol initially?, then maybe bring in here further down the road?)

• List of which Palm and Treo devices can be synchronized and limitations. Do some of their recent devices run the Microsoft flavour of PDA OS (and are therefore not compatible with Ecco?)

• stay compliant with Wikipedia formatting "standards".

• when we start to have subsections to deal with specific subtopics (some listed below) use format like what is used throughout Wikipedia. Would include automatic generation of table of contents etc.

• Open Source discussion

• Utilities in Yahoo library with some description (ideally by topic)

• Utilities such as EccoHelpers, Ivitar software such as VB toolkit etc,

• History of product. Introduced in, development stopped in ...

• Open Source discussion, respectful of Netmanage.

• Possible use of a portal down the road. (like a sub site I think)

Ted-Longstaffe 10:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to me at least, i feel like i'm being given a sales pitch. what's this about a "list of ecco wannabes"? there's nothing encyclopedic about that. there are also a lot of excited statements that don't suggest a neutral point of view. ("through the extraordinary step of disassembling and modifying the binary executable", "available here FOR FREE"). is there any need for there to be an external link to the programmer's current law firm? i could go on... 64.0.112.44 (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. relax. FREE and LEGAL. (1) the original program is distributed FREELY. (2) the modifications/extensions are overlays. FREE is ... FREE and LEGIT.

2. the disassembling of the binary executable to do what it now does, is extraordinary. If you think that term is not accurate to the fact... please give example of something you find "extraordinary". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.118.54 (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article reads rather too much like an advertisement and is unencyclopedic in several ways. I don't have time to fix it, nor interest in the topic, but am registering my thought here in order to begin to allow facilitate a discussion and consensus among those WP editors who do care to work on this. N2e (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with N2e. The page looks like an advertisement. It needs to be edited to remove all the POV language. lk (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read above comments, then looked closely at article text. Found & edited an instance of "even" (POV). Found other exciting words not POV -- they are objective and accurate. The FACTS of Ecco are exciting. The article is 'exciting' not because of POV language but because Ecco itself is vibrant. Interest in comment about what wording, specifically, is POV.

Please sign you entries. Being exciting and "vibrant" is inherently subjective thus POV. This article contravenes the manual of style in many ways, from the inappropriate tone to the tons of external links directly in the text. It would take a lot of work to bring it up to standards, but it seems no one who knows about Ecco Pro wants to do it. I'd clean it up myself, but know nothing about the subject, so my edits would mostly be cutting inappropriate material out, which would translate into a major trim.--Boffob (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since every non-quantitative adjective is inherently subjective, wonder what you do with other works of art or novels. Have looked carefully at your cited links. Could you more explicitly explain what *specific* external links section you feel is at issue. If you'd quote a few lines of the article text you feel is potentially inappropriate, and cite to specifically how & why (ie. by reference to specific section/subsection of MOS/EL policy, etc) am more than willing to take your lead & constructive suggestions and put in some effort to help 'bring it up to standards'. But important that those 'standards' are objective. 'Inappropriate tone' is subjective POV. As tone is the attitude that an author takes toward the subject, is this the core of your feelings-- eg., the authors were interested in and excited by the subject ? Certainly it's not your POV that 'appropriate' attitude should be of boredom and disinterest ? YSWT —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

WP:EL Important point #2: don't put external links in the text, put them in the External links section or as inline cite if it's meant as a footnote and the link is an appropriate reliable source. WP:ELNO point 10: discussion groups and forums are to be avoided. I haven't checked all the links on the page, but I wouldn't be surprised if many require registration (forums and discussion groups...), which is also to be avoided unless it's a cite from a reliable source (or it's the subject of the article's website). Wiki is not a how to guide to support Ecco Pro development and usage. There shouldn't be any "download program/updates/patches/whatever here" links anywhere in the text. Wikipedia is not a promotional site either, thus you shouldn't link to some former developper's law firm page (which has nothing to do with Ecco Pro, WP:ELNO point 13). The purpose of an encyclopedia is only describe what Ecco Pro is or was. There are still tone issues in the "Product functionality" section and onwards (whether the program appears complex or not is in the eye of the beholder, thus unnecessary POV, same goes for the "secret" to devoted following). So please, don't remove the tags if you don't address these specific issues. If you do not wish to fix them, I will eventually remove the inappropriate material.--Boffob (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Boffob, Have looked carefully at your input, and think part of issue may be your lack of familiarity with EccoPro as an historic issue, and importance of documenting both the OLD history and the more recent history. Orphanage by the original distribution company AND user based revitalization is all part of the story of the program. It might even provide important historic insight to future researchers on wikipedia. (1) maybe you also need to sit down with the guidelines again. "Exceptions (i.e. sites that can be both references and External Links) include an official site of the article's subject, or a domain specifically devoted to the article's subject which contains multiple subpages". The external sites listed are direct references eg., that a small fix can allow linking directly to file, and to devoted subject sites of multiple pages. The EXPRESS reference rule allows BOTH reference (in-line) and External Link. (2) You apparently have not understood the conceptual import, nor looked closely at the footnotes. See the footnote Note that under WP:External links#What_should_be_linked, a link to a social networking site MAY be included when it is the OFFICIAL website for a business, organization, or person. The Yahoo! forum is the OFFICIAL Ecco Pro user's organization, is FREE, and provides literally thousands of pages of additional information and reference material. If someone wants to learn MORE about, for example, the development of the 'extension' the place to look for MORE INFO is the official website, as linked. By removing a link like that you are cutting off the ability to do additional research on the topic. (3) All the sites are FREE (except historic site "Compusol". If is improper to have link to site that charges registration, tell me, and will remove that singular, non-free site. again, except "Compusol" (which based on your input, may violate rules since it is a pay-to-join/enter site; you tell me) the other sites offer massive FREE RESOURCE for research and learning more about the topic. (4) Links to pages containing more info about patches is 100% proper and important.. the patches are part of the history of the program's development, and links to support the claims about the patches and to provide reference to info about the patches is important. There should be no links to actual software downloads, etc., it should all be reference and research material links as far as I can tell. One link is to a file section which contains an ARCHIVE of research material available for free download-- ie, appropriate link. (5) why is 'link to some former developper's law firm page' any different than link to further bio info about one of the individuals referenced in article ? If someone is researching EccoPro, isn't a link to potential source of additional info helpful ? Just asking!; also, as for "(whether the program appears complex or not is in the eye of the beholder, thus unnecessary POV, same goes for the "secret" to devoted following)." you are saying that description of how something appears is not proper, as appearance is always subjective ? You would delete all articles on art and music, unless they were strictly mathematical records of the subject ?? You have apparently been helpful in past in removing 'spam' and solicitations from the wiki-- very helpful. Vandalizing information sites and removing links documenting modern history is not helpful. Hope you'll consider that. YSWT (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one removing the totally inappropriate external links, the pricing information, etc. etc. All those external links in the wikitext solliciting to go to a download page or external page for information are not appropriate. Please review our policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beestra's correct. The links and other data that were included were inappropriate. TJRC (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to perform a major cleanup on the article. However, I decided the job would have to wait until I have a bit more time because there would not be much left if the obviously inappropriate material were simply deleted, and because it is hard to work out the background of the product. So I am starting by alerting the supporters of this software: please do not be offended when the article is significantly trimmed because the neutral point of view and no original research policies are fundamental and are eventually applied to all articles.

As I understand the situation, Ecco Pro is a PIM that was a commercial product. However, a particular version was released "free" but without source code (I have not noticed any licensing details), and that version is supported via add ons and a user forum. Apparently, some people sell a version of the software, but there is very little information here about what that software is, or what support is provided (and a sample URL is given without the http prefix so that it is not a link).

A severe problem is that I have not found a single reliable source, and it appears that there is not even an official website for the product apart from the Yahoo user forum. The product has been fondly mentioned in some reliable sources, but the information in those sources is only sufficient for a couple of short paragraphs.

Wikipedia is not a guide and the sections extolling the virtues of the software and how it is used will need severe pruning, and the non-encyclopedic language ("for the unwary", "most users write", "devoted following", and more) will need to be removed. The "Version History" section with prices and excessive details should probably be entirely removed (if this information is important, put it on your own website).

I notice that Beetstra has just started some cleanup, so some of the above may no longer be relevant, but I will post it all anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need to understand a topic to edit it. Software is free. Some sites attempt to sell the software which is available free at official usergroup (free) site, as permitted by publisher NetManage. If there is a a cult or devoted following to a software that is important information to include in the article. 'excessive details' regarding version history ?? Where did you pull that from ? Other software has very extensive version history. How does it hurt the article ? You're arguing shorter article with less relevant information is better ? YSWT (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq; the last major release (4.0) was in 1996, as I recall, so you should not expect to find a whole lot of RSes on the web. Most of that will be in actual paper documents, in particular contemporary magazines covering PC software in that timeframe. I'm not suggesting that you need to hit the library and research it (although that's always a nice thing; I'm doing that on the old "President for One Day" chestnut; just a warning that a lack of online indicia of notability does not equate to a lack of notability.

I'd also suggest keeping the release history; maybe not the pricing. TJRC (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, some potential links for you: [1]. TJRC (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!TJRC, very nice & helpful. However, seems little chance Johnuniq will take the time to actually read the material and add content to the article with references to the multiple news articles on difference aspects of Ecco Pro that you've helpfully pointed out. YSWT (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those look like good sources for some more information. Does anyone have access to these? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This product needs its own website. I looked at both forums and (like all forums) they are very hard to follow. Wikipedia is not the right place to explain detailed history or future plans, or to provide how-to information. If you have at least three people who will help, you could make your own wiki with pages showing exactly what the product can do, and how new users should install it, etc. Go to wikia.com and find a small wiki that you can use as a template (i.e. you can copy ideas about how they set up the main page and so on). Make an account (you have to say you are over 13) and create a wiki. Think hard about the name and what you are going to do first. I strongly suggest you work with your competition and see if they want to put pages on the same wiki. You can calmly and politely use your own page to say why your stuff is better, but do not flame the opposition. Then, you could build a website that is useful. Wikia will not host downloads (only images and certain media files), but you could have a coherent page showing what a user has to do to install. If you want, feel free to comment on my talk page and I might be able to answer any questions (we should not continue discussing this here because it is definitely off-topic for an article talk page). After you have established an "official" website, a link to it could be added in "External links" here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, could be mistaken but seems like you contributed to deletion of the article's link to the eccowiki.com . In other words, you haven't even taken the time to actually read the material you've been deleting. Moroever, as the official site for the extension specifications, it is the appropriate reference to support the specs for the extension as listed in this article. In any case, since clearly the reference to the wiki is significant and appropriate, you've demonstrated: (1) this article has been vandalized and key and appropriate links have been removed and (2) you have not spend *any* time researching the topic of this article and make edits based on what exactly-- a lengthy experience making edits on other articles the subject of which you are equally ignorant on ? Now clearly, you, or anyone, *could* take the time to research and have knowledge of the subject, and based on that knowledge contribute. YSWT (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, you clearly have knowledge of the subject, and you can't provide us with reliable, independent sources. Let me explain, a site like eccowiki.com is user contributed information which has no editorial oversight. Anyone, can write anything there, and when you then write something here sourced to that site, then it does not mean anything. The same goes for the forums, anyone can contribute there, what is written there is absolutely not necessarily true. YSWT, I am not using Wikipedia as a source, it is totally unreliable, just as most of the links that are or were in the article. And the ones which are reliable, don't say too much. I know which sites I looked at, and how I deemed their reliability or the amount of information they offer, and since I do deem them unreliable sources, we can't use them to source information here, and if the information is either from a totally unreliable source, or unsourced, it should go. That is not vandalising, as you keep pressing, it is making sure that there is no original research here, and that the article is neutral. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq, how come you're deleting the references to MS own website in all the articles on MS products ? The eccoPro extension is a FREE extension, the eccowiki does have editorial oversight and is the official wiki for the extension. As the official reference source for the extension it is a proper reference for assertions about technical aspects of the extension. If you're not familiar with the topic you can't properly edit the article. An article edit by ignorants on the subject-- any subject is not going to end up very well. You can research & learn about the subject and edit as a person with knowledge. But short of that, you are just being silly. Alternatively, you and Beet *could* instead of just deleting parts of the article, collaborate with someone who has knowledge on the subject. Just 'pushing your way' around isn't collaboration.

YSWT: I take it that you do not want to follow my suggestion. Let me try again: it really is a good idea, and I mention it because I appreciate your enthusiasm for Ecco Pro and I would like to help you to do something productive because the material you want to include here is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Wikia are very happy for you to make a wiki with just 10 pages if that's all you want, and you can describe in great detail what Ecco is, its history, how to install, how to use, etc. Detailed images can be included. The only problems are that unregistered users will see adverts, and you cannot use it to host downloads. You will get quite reasonable results in Google searches (if you have useful content), and once it is established I would be happy to add a link to it from here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq. You just don't get it. To my view you and those many just like you are the death of wikipedia. You want to contribute but you don't become knowledgeable on the subject before you 'edit' the article. There *are* information sources on Ecco. there is a very nice Wiki. There *was* a link to the wiki. It was removed in the 'helpful' editing recently. Somehow you don't get how the history of Ecco is important. Nowhere in the article was there instructions on how to install or use ecco. More important, how in the world can you-- TOTALLY IGNORANT ON THE TOPIC OF THE ARTICLE-- decide what information is "the material you want to include here is totally inappropriate" or not. There is so much, but let's work with one specific example-- the price history of ecco. How in the world can YOU with NO KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT have any basis to judge whether that information is appropriate or not. As an expert on the subject I know and understand the importance. I wasn't the editor who first included the price information, but I did take the time to find credible, print sourcing to reference the pricing info. However, that doesn't matter to you or Beet-- individuals with NO KNOWLEDGE of the subject - what-so-ever. Your ignorant opinions are that the information is irrelevant or "not appropriate". How would you know ? 04:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnuniq, what is irritating to me personally is not only are you ignorant on the subject you 'force' your editorial choices on, but you treat those with knowledge on the subject with condescension. You suggest to me that I should start a wiki and 'you' will add a link to it. Aside from the absurdity that you repeatedly removed the link to just such a wiki, Why couldn't I (or anyone) add a link themselves. Why do they need you to do it or your approval for it ? Did you intend the condescension or just mimic it from the tone you've seen others use at wikipedia ? (The history and story of ecco is an amazing and interesting one. Why would you deprive students, others, around the world of knowledge of it ? ) Oh, and don't even try to play the 'no reference' bit. If you want to help an article -- research and add references. And, the website of a the law office of some person, is darn good reference that the person is an attorney (certainly in an article that is not about that person). Someone (not me) put effort into finding & adding the reference. Why on earth would you delete it ??? [just another example]. 84.109.107.68 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is Wikipedia, it is necessary to follow Wikipedia's procedures. The old discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/MagicView makes it clear that those procedures are not universally understood. If anyone wants to ask a question, please start a new section. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 84.109.107.68. Lets say we are ignorant on the subject. Then there is a lot of information in this subject, which we read (lets take the old version, the one with all the inline external links/or so called 'references'). How do we know that the statements are true, we look at the references. Following those references, we see that we can not assert that the information that we read here is true. The source that is used to write something is not a suitable source. As most of the information that was linked is self-published (no, not by you, but by the subject that you are writing about), we can't trust it is true, there is no oversight. Same for the forums, anyone can write anything on a forum, and they are unreadable. So they do not help you further in referencing an article. We may be ignorant on the subject, but this article is hence not making us less ignorant.

We are not depriving anyone the story, but it needs to be reliably referenced to independent sources. And there are none. Why am I not writing about my amazing life. Because I can't source it. So how about Ecco Pro? Are there other sources you can use to actually attribute what is written here to? Sources that are not user written, that are not self-published, but written by third parties? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

software publisher's website is generally the appropriate reference for an article on software. see eg., microsoft software articles, " ^ a b c "Windows 7 system requirements". Microsoft. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/system-requirements", "Windows 7 Release Candidate Customer Preview Program. Microsoft. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/download.aspx", etc. the software publisher's website is especially appropriate reference for the software technicals. on this particular topic, can be some confusion for those not familiar with the subject, for example, the 'ecco wiki' as actually the official page for the ecco extension (and thus appropriate for specs, eg., 'facts', about the extension), and ecco_pro forum is homepage for download of official/licensed software itself, etc., similarly, the respective websites of those interfaces/extensions referenced are the appropriate reference for those respective technical specs. etc. YSWT (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two external links which are heavily pushed by owners or editors who also have a strong involvement in said forums:

• the original Ecco Pro Forum
• the new Ecco Pro Forum

There are other links which have been included on previous versions of this page (see for example this old version), where again the editors are also involved in maintaining, or are active contributors to, these sites.

I'd like to see some independent consideration which and whether these sites should be included. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own suggestion is to start with a version prior to the massive cuts from Beetstra and one other 'editor' (both have total ignorance on the article's topic) and fix from there. I just don't the have time to do it, and any changes seem to get 'bullied' out by a couple of 'persistent' guys/gals that know nothing about the subject but take deep interest in making edits none-the less. [2] YSWT (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not under discussion here, we are discussing if these links are suitable external links, the rest of the document is under discussion in talkposts above. There the question is if they are suitable references, which is a different ballpark. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Returning after a few weeks and restoring stuff like "devoted following" is not going to work. Would someone please reword the article to remove the promotional fluff. If you do that, other editors may not feel the need to severely prune the text. The prices must be removed. One trivial point is that style here (see WP:MOS) uses lowercase titles (except for proper names), so "Attempts to duplicate Ecco Pro" is the correct title (and is it "Ecco Pro" or "EccoPro"?). Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid what was an unconstructive edit restoring unencyclopedic content.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you were reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues:

• Why are there two infoboxes?
• Total consistency may not be possible (sometimes it's "Ecco Pro" and sometimes "EccoPro") but "ECCO" is unsatisfactory.
• Every program has devoted followers, but Wikipedia does not use that kind of language even if someone used those words in a blog.
• Likewise, promotional phrases such as "known to seem at first to be complex, but most users write that once mastered..." are used on official and fan websites, but are not appropriate here.

Have a look at Category:Personal information managers for some similar articles, for example IBM Lotus Organizer. Note that the Lotus article is much more encyclopedic than this article, yet it still has a "neutrality disputed" tag, and a comment on its talk page complaining about issues that are extremely minor compared with the language in this article. I am quite happy to clean out the inappropriate language, but I'm waiting to see if the product's users would like to engage in a discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid it again, and will probably have to do so until the persistent editor at least comes to discuss the changes he wants to make that pretty much every one else sees as unencyclopedic.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's see if we can get some consensus:

1. "devoted following" several print articles mention this as well as being raised by couple of books. Ecco software was 'terminated' by Netmanage in 1990s. The 'story' of Ecco is that it continued to live, because of the user bases' refusal to leave or lack of replacement, and user to user support network which was created. I have no personal love for the 'devoted following' language, but the underlying information of the 'story' seems interesting, informative, and important to the article. There are currently several free Ecco user to user support groups, and at current per documentation on those user sites, several thousand active members/ecco users. Better way to convey info, am not sure, but one possibility.

2. Part of the failure of ecco software, discussed in several print articles, was that "known to seem at first to be complex" but as discussed in those articles and in blogs/forums "users write that once mastered ... " The incredible difficulty in first using ecco is part of the story of ecco-- why it failed. (ie., officially based on other's reports of the product/product story). The devotion-- storys in compuworld, etc., on users who won't give up their ecco software even years after been discontinued... is also important part of the story.

3. The revitalization subject of print articles, news articles, book subject, is important part of story also. users taking object code and adding modern functionality to software.

4. The OFFICIAL release of the software-- FOR FREE-- and the availability of the authorized official released FOR FREE version and site is important and proper. "Compusol" is a warez site distributing without license bootleg versions of the sofware FOR PAY TO DOWNLOAD FEE. Since the software, and the modern extension are all FREE... replacing the official FREE distribution link with the pay-to-download warez 'compusol' link is... not so helpful and violates the wiki policies.

5. as for 'The prices must be removed'. The historic pricing is important to understand and put in context the failure of the product. Since the product was released by Netmanage for free, the historic pricing has no economic interest... it is historic.

6. The attempts to replace ecco, to my own view are worthy to keep, and the 'story' of ecco is that the dead program still has users and development because there is no replacement. Comparing the featureset of 'replacements' which have been developed puts the story in context. Obviously should not start going into detail about the technical comparison of replacements, but at least a reference link so those interested can go look and compare as to what modern replacements of the same concepts looks like from technical aspect.

hope anon at 70.80.234.196 will discuss here. Please do not remove the official and free product distribution site link and replace it with the 'compusol' warez pay-to-download unlicensed copies of the software. Can see no legitimate purpose for such action, clearly violates the wiki policies and guidelines. 'Charlie1945' owns the compusol site and it makes sense from his own self interest standpoint (he makes money for each user fed to his pay-to-view site) to replace the official distribution of the FREE software with a link to the warez site.

YSWT (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok2 looked at lotus organizer article-- it is a terrible article and doubtful meeting wiki notability requirement. Look at the Lotus Agenda article. Notice the external links:

1. Lotus Software has made Agenda 2.0 (the last version before development ended) available for free downloading, but without support or documentation.
2. http://guterman.com/guterman_clips/guterman_clips_Agenda/guterman_clips_agenda.html
3. http://waxandwane.org/beeswax/agenda/article1.html
4. http://agenda.bobnewell.net A good site for downloading a pre-installed version and learning about how to use the program

hopefully 70.80.234.196 you didn't intend it, but you were removing those same links from this article, and replacing them with the link to a warez pay-to download (compusol) site. Hope this info is now helpful. YSWT (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question if article would benefit from addition of table of actively developed extensions, by extension function, date developed, freeware or not, system requirements ? Any thoughts ? YSWT (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the neutral, unbiased point of view of EccoProMember. The article EccoPro has multiple issues. The editor EccoProMember saw the need for reliable sources and additional references as requested by Wikipedia. EPM (EccoProMember)placed several verifiable links removed repeatedly by YSWT who has a visible conflict of interest by promoting his commercial sites.

YSWT is not the official distributor of EccoPro and promotes only his own so called (commercial, see trial programs!) "WAREZ" site [[3]], his Software forum [[4]] and his tech support group [[5]].

EPM (here EccoProMember) did not remove any links and promos inserted by YSWT for his own purpose since his unreasonable heated COI discussion on Wikipedia’s talk page last November. EPM added only verifiable history and facts [[6]] and [[7]] used by the original creator of the EccoPro section of Wikipedia, added the still existing original EccoPro support forum [[8]] with world wide 3867 members and email exchanges regarding the free use of EccoPro with the original owner NetManage in 2004 [[9]]. Those references were removed by YSWT in his latest editions. EPM did not add any links to the membership area at CompuSol. According to the agreement with NetManage of 2004 any multiple software downloads of EccoPro are free for members in good standing acquiring software support at CompuSol. EccoProMember (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored your comment to remove the indent. Replies should be indented. I also toned-down the heading.

Would both parties please stop using excited language in edit summaries. Warez implies illegality, and suggesting that an editor is involved with warez could be interpreted as a personal attack. I'm not sure of the applicable policy, but I can assure everyone that any warez links are completely eradicated from Wikipedia on detection (as are links to any content, such as a video, where the external content is probably a breach of copyright). So, if anyone has evidence that a link is to a warez site, you simply need to post a neutrally-worded and brief explanation with links to evidence showing that some item at a linked site is (probably) a breach of copyright. There should be no need to mention another editor in such a statement. I have not studied the above comments at this stage, but I suspect that evidence in this case will be hard to evaluate: if someone wants to make a statement regarding a link, please also include your opinion about the strength of the evidence. When I have time, I will probably offer some other opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compusol is a warez site, charging for distributing 'bootleg' software. EccoProMember seems to be also Charlie1945. Their combined contributions are just attempts to add links to 'compusol'. The Ecco_Pro (notice underline) user group is official distribution site for eccoPro program and extension. Both are OFFICIAL and FREE. By contract, if you pay the fee for access, you can download from compusol site all kinds of 'unofficial' software downloads, (copyright and written not by 'compusol'). Here is sample link from compusol site http://www.compusol.org/ecco/pub/EccoPro64.zip . LINKS TO SITES REQUIRING PAYMENT FOR ACCESS SUCH AS COMPUSOL ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS WIKI. (Links to WAREZ sites such as compusol are also not appropriate.). Links to OFFICIAL sites such as ecco_pro forum and eccowiki (official extension documentation) are appropriate and helpful.

Years ago someone suggested to me adding the compusol site, and based on mis-information about the site I was the editor who originally added a link to compusol a few years ago. Other editors in time complained, and after a little investigation it became clear consensus that link was not appropriate. Charlie1945 has used multiple attempts to re-insert his paid site links. That just does not help this article.

If relevant for background eccopro (no _) was once legit user group, but few years ago was taken over by 'Charlie1945' and now used to attempt to feed unaware users to his pay-to-access site. YSWT (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I use my same ID here as everywhere, and as an eccopro expert, freely lend my help to developments by multiple authors both commercial and free. I did not start this wiki article, but am proud to have contributed to it, just as did not start the eccowiki, etc., but have been asked, and have been proud to make contributions. Spend a few minutes looking at eccowiki.com and becomes clear is legit, free, and community based. YSWT (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is correct, I can understand your frustration. However, you must realize that when communicating with uninvolved editors what counts are facts. It would be desirable to first focus on the "warez" claim, and any talk about users, or claims about what is appropriate, are simply not currently relevant.

I see these claims: There is a fee [$10 per year] to download software from Compusol; the downloads are unofficial and are not written by Compusol. Ecco_Pro is an official distribution site, and is free.

Even if proven, that is not sufficient to allow a conclusion of "warez". It appears that Compusol is a company with a U.S. address, and frankly it does not seem likely that they would distribute warez: if they were, the copyright holder should be able to easily restrain the practice (and if there is no copyright holder, it is not warez). My suggestion would be to work out clearly what is claimed, and decide if the claim is really supportable. Perhaps the situation does not really involve illegal copyright violations, but might be interpreted as an ethical problem. In that case, you really must not use the term "warez" which is defined as an illegal act (I say "must not" because of WP:NPA).

Am not the 'warez' police but the site is a real life 'ecco' warez site. Pay to enter and you can download software from Microsoft, Netmanage, (see this link mid way down: http://www.compusol.org/ecco/ ), pay compusol and get "EccoPro ADD-ONs CCPro, Catalyst Tools, Forms and Reporter" even "the EccoPro Version 3.01 - Intellilink 3.1.1 Combo" There is no 'compusol' software, only 'installer' installing other's copyrighted software (including microsoft's) on your computer.YSWT (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any way editors here can or should arbitrate regarding a claim of an ethical breach. As I indicated in previous comments above (October 2009), the current article contains inappropriate language, and I suspect that the best strategy from Wikipedia's point of view would be to severely trim this article and provide one link to each of the competing sites without any editorial regarding which is superior. In particular, the current article looks as if it is a substitute for an official site (because no such site exists), and that is definitely not an appropriate use of Wikipedia.

1. There is an official site, eccowiki. I cannot agree with you that link should be added to pay-to-access site. This seems clearly prohibited. Also, just because some crazy guy tries to plug his pay-to-access ecco warez site, does not make the article a 'self help' guide. There is not a 'how to' eccowiki. There is a user group and official software distribution site. The historic story of ecco is pretty cool (at least to me and some others). The historic story of ecco, as published by credible sources (as is state of article now), with referenced support for technical claims of software, seems helpful, informative.

2. Have invested a lot of effort to remove inappropriate and unsupported language. Original article sounded like a late nite advert for success in life tapes or something. If there is still language that seems "inappropraite" helpful to look at and revise. Offer my technical expertise with ecco... point to the most blatent 'inappropriate' language and let's see if we can improve the article. YSWT (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to reply, please start by stating what you claim (e.g. "X is warez"), then provide reasoning to support that claim without referring to anything else. If you want to make a second point, start with a claim and then provide reasoning for that claim. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been away from here for some time, but I think I need to keep an eye here. I have, again, cleaned this article from violations of WP:NOT (we are not the yellow pages, not a list to find sites which are not notable enough for internal pages (if they don't have it, create them, not link externally), the way of linking is discouraged by our manual of style, the places linked to are violating the external links guideline. Please, read first the guidelines, and then edit. YSWT, you are involved in the sites, you should read WP:COI, and if someone removes them, you should not be the one to reinsert it (and vice versa, this also goes for others with a, declared or undeclared, conflict of interest), follow the way of discussing and find consensus here. All of you, come up with references for all claims in the article (yes, independent ones, see the reliable sources guideline). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How curious you would show up now, exactly when your former co-editor (with new single use account) and happen to remove the very same content you removed previously, and help to insert the very same spam link to pay-to-access compusol.

Beetstra, once again it looks like you've been participating in replacing the free official licensed distribution links for ecco pro with pay-to-access bootleg software spam links for "compusol". have noticed posts like this on the web as well:

To All:

To request a Wikipedia reference to our "Eccopro" group which was removed please go to the discussion area at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ecco_Pro" and see the recent admissions there. Click on edit (at the right edge) for the

March 2010 section and leave your comment at the bottom of the page as requested by Wikipedia's Dirk Beetstra!! Please follow Wikipedia's rules, come up with references if possible and please do not use 'inappropriate' language.

Thank you for your help!

The compusol links to a pay-to-access site are clearly spam. The removal of the link to the official and free distribution site is vandalism to the article. The attempt to 'recruit' editors to support the efforts is a serious violation of wiki policy.

Since you co-editor is from the compusol site, there is very clear conflict of interest issue as well.

Please revert the article and remove the spam links, and revert the proper links.

especially since your co-editor in all this is clearly a single purpose account, this is clearly abusive of the wiki. YSWT (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stuff inserted by compusol guy:

Citation: … then released free at official user group [^[2]] along with both [^[3]], free update extensions, and 'eccotools'…

To just reverse the page to the YSWT version is not acceptable! EccoProMember (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the content:

• Where it is now downloadable, which downloadable version is legal or illegal or whatever is not encyclopedic (unless there are notable legal cases regarding this). The text was riddled with 'now available here', 'get the update there', that is not the task of Wikipedia.
• How much an 'object' costs is not encyclopedic, except if that is a notable (which means that independent sources would have
• We are no a howto install guide, a whereto get-it guide, a price-list, or a whatever guide. Stick to the encyclopedic facts.
• A lot of editors here have, to different extends, a conflict of interest with certain parts of the story, and Wikipedia is not the place to fight over which is the official site, the official forum and the unofficial but new forum, which forum has the most members, which forum has the most EccoPro followers.
• Inline linking of the forums is not according our policies and guidelines, it is discouraged.
• There is no consensus here on which forum(s) should be included, and whether they should be included.

Read the policies and guidelines, and don't wikilawyer your way out with 'but Article X has that as well', 'but the guideline does not say that X is wrong, it only says that Y is good', or 'but we now have # editors trying to include it, so it must have consensus'. Here is the place to get consensus on inclusion, and even if one of you agrees with it, if there is no consensus here, I'd suggest reverting unexplained and/or undiscussed edits and establish consensus here first). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure wish you would do that.YSWT (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an implication in some of the above comments that a U.S. company has a website including Microsoft warez. It seems inconceivable that Microsoft would permit their products to be on such a site, and I see no evidence to support this claim. However, if anyone has evidence, please report it and, if substantiated, the site will be closed. I see no evidence of "warez" in relation to any software. Charging $10 per year to download apparently free software is not a legal or ethical problem (many of Wikipedia's articles are sold by publishers who want to exploit the material – that is an accepted part of Wikipedia provided certain licencing conditions are satisfied). Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecco software is not public domain. It is not GPL. It is licensed software distributed (officially) for free. Charging $10 to distribute someone else's software is both a legal and ethical issue. @Johnuniq, the site advertises distribution of other's licensed software for $10. You don't see that as evidence of warez ?YSWT (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no links to downloads anywhere in the document anymore. Only references to information. Substantiate where the article says 'download here' where the link is to an illegal site. If a site is doing that, again, report it, but here is not the place to play that game. You are totally right, we should not link directly to warez sites, but that does not mean that we should link to other download sites. I can agree to an 'all go', I am not agreeing to a 'mine is legal, so mine should be there'. You should know by know what we are and what not (see also my other posts of the last couple of minutes). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the same 2 editors (one with updated account) are removing the legal, free, official links, and adding the warez pay-to-access compusol links.

am surprised it is so easy to do on this wiki.

@Johnuniq, in the past have disagreed with substantive perspective you saw on things, and certainly don't know you, we are not friends, etc. For sure don't expect you to see things 'my way' because 'I' suggest them. Don't you think that maybe replacing multiple links to the pay-to-access compusol site is spam ?YSWT (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, could you please show me which links are 'pay-to-access', where we are linking to warez. I have, as far as I can see, removed all instances where there is linked to 'where to download', forum links, etc. etc., and the, and I have told you and others over and over, inappropriate in-text linking to forums. Wikipedia is NOT the place to find free forums where one can get support. We are not a manual, we are not Google, we are not a how-to guide. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick glance at history will show, it seems to have fallen on my to defend this article from an onslaught of spam from compusol using about 3 different single use accounts, and with the help of the same co-editor.

By coincidence the same co-editor and compusol guy show up periodically (spanning months, years?). I just don't have time to keep reverting. As a moderator of the official and free ecco_pro user group where the software if officially, freely distributed.

last legit revision seems to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecco_Pro&oldid=337851492

hopefully others will get involved. (and that is legit others, not those privately brought to make directed changes to the article).YSWT (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, first assume good faith, secondly, there is no need to have 'legit links including official FREE distribution site', we are not google, we are not a manual, we are not a how-to guide. This is an encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIRK: Assumption of good faith is rebutted by your coincidental edits here always in conjunction with mass injection of links to the compusol site. The compusol site is not a credible or proper source for any reference link. that is just a trick you're trying to insert span redirect links to the site. Do not think you're fooling anyone and in the end, your attempts will be unsuccessful and you will be banned. Official distribution site is proper link in software article and you know that. You also know that compusol is not a publication and is not a proper reference or source. Obviously anyone can copy articles of other sources to their website and then redirect traffic 'as if' the link was to original or legitimate article. I don't have time for you right now, but hopefully others do. YSWT (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come with better references. A forum is lower on the list than compusol. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, if I would have noticed the re-insertion of the prices, and the in-text links to the forum, I would have removed them immediately as well. Those links were, are, and will be in violation of our manual of style and the way they were used is in violation of policies on this site. We are not a howto, we are not a manual, we are not a replacement for Google, where it can be downloaded is not encyclopedic .. etc. etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate and would it conform to Wikipedia rules to link or cite Ecco Pro instructional videos on YouTube or the one at “http://wwwcompusol.org/ecco/video”?

EccoProMember (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the 'everyone' who contributes to articles the hostility here dismays me. I am an attorney and I take the wikipedia's promise and representation that everyone can contribute to be very serious. I have carefully read the rules and guidelines and I suggest those with any special agenda do the same. 70.251.114.178 (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bring this to ANI, though I did revert. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Ecco_Pro. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time now to deal with this, but when do, will again contribute. Hope someone else will contribute and fix, won't have to. Recent edits by Beetstra and editors he invited, have worked to destroy this article. Could elaborate but just one example: "Ecco Pro also contains a DDE API which exposes many elements of the database to external manipulation. The API can be accessed directly via DDE, and there are several bindings with functions specific for Ecco Pro."

Don't think that anyone who understood subject would delete that. (or tens of other parts of article recently deleted). Apparently it is fun for 'editors' who don't know or care about subject matter to remove material from the articles anyhow. Worse, nstead of working through discussion and consensus, seems to be 'we edit lots of articles, so we can do what we want' approach by many. YSWT (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YWST, you don't own the article either, you (plural) had a chance to invite independent (knowledgeable) editors (preferably those who are around for a longer time), you were not willing to do that. Get consensus here, start topics about the pricing, start topics about the external links, and have a look at the policies and guidelines about referencing and so on. No, forums are not good references, and compusol is also not a good reference, but you and others have been invited to insert better references, but those better references (which I accidentally inserted; diff; 'no need to directly link, credit whom credit is due')that do exist get deleted without question (see diff where the reference was removed from 'ECCO competed in the PIM space against several formidable competitors<ref>PC Magazine, August 1997, pp. 222-223, 237</ref>.' .. now what is the problem with THAT reference). And if better referenced don't exist, maybe the whole statement has to go.

All this article sees are those with an agenda, and when others come in (as I did originally, and Johnuniq, and now some others), all that is happening to them is that they are being told they do not discuss inclusion, they are being ridiculed, vague threats are being implied or their independence is being questioned. And by whom, I may ask, just by those who have involvement themselves, or by new editors. YSWT (and others), get consensus for INCLUSION here. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by Beetstra and editors he invited - I wasn't invited by anyone. I saw the article mentioned over at the reliable sources board and came over. The article in it's previous state was frankly shite - it was full of weasel words and puff and read like an advert. It made use of terrible terrible worthless sources. If you think that material is missing, write about it in a netural fashion and make use of reliable sources and nobody can stop you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]