Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 900 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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]

No, it would not. We are not an instruction manual. If something is notable in the instruction to mention here on wiki, then the reference may be useful, though for it to be notable, it would need coverage from a independent, reliable source. Note that I would still like all the compusol references to be replaced. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:24, 3 May 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]

Beetstra at first I was offended when you posted on my talk page threats. Then when looking over your contributions I found that more than 30 editors had complained about you, and you threatened more than half of them. Anyone looking at your contribution history can see that just like I did. Your independence is not in question, a review of the history of this article shows your involvement exclusively with the insertion of compusol spam links. When no compusol links you don't contribute. Compusol links inserted *bam* you appear and revert attempts to remove and threaten about their removal.

The text you want to insert "several formidable competitors" is not appropriate. This is not an advertisement for compusol. Adding a nice reference to puffery language doesn't make it legit. YSWT (talk) 02:43, 30 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 AN/I 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]

Beetstra's technique was to change the article-- adding shite and removing good sources, and then posting in the AN/I. So those who look at and edit are editing up a shite article. It wasn't always so... When have time, will try to restore the reliable sources which were clipped... YSWT (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and if you're saying that a post on the AN/I isn't an invitation for edits... not sure can agree with you on that one. YSWT (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"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." - would it be possible to provide some explanations of what all that jargon means? An encyclopedia article should not be understandable only for people who already know everything about the subject. What's an API? What's a DDE? What does "binding" stand for in this context? Are there Wikipedia articles that can be linked to? (This applies to a lot of the incomprehensible jargon in the article). --bonadea contributions talk 06:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT has tried to add back in the same worthless sources and puff-filled statements that he was using earlier - press releases and blogs are not reliable sources, especially to try and back the sorts of sweeping statements you are making about the product being iconic etc etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not intentionally trying to push the compusol site, your edits don't make sense. "formidable competitors", and what is ref to compusol -- that is not a news source. Moreover, why do you take out the OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION SITE of the development distribution and replace it with compusol site which does not develop any software, and releases an unofficial bootleg of the original ecco software, NOT the continued development software. 84.109.107.68 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The eccowiki is reference for official specs for object code development. Believe this is a reference that should be in main article, with the reference to technical specs for DDE API transports. For now have added these back as external links, but invite consensus to restore the links as references to the article text, where they really belong. If someone is researching about ecco_Pro and trying to find info on the DDE transport, those links should be in main text as references.YSWT (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted them from the external links section - an external link should provide additional information about the article subject not provide links to additional pieces of software that would be helpful to a user who wanted to extend that product. So we wouldn't, for example, list outlook add-ins on the Outlook page. So a useful external link would be something like a scholarly resource that compared Ecco Pro to other pieces of software or provide an historical overview of the product. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is you don't understand what a DDE API transport is. YSWT (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, again, YSWT 'intentionally trying to push the compusol site', are you going to say that of everyone now. a) I have invited you to find better sources, you can't provide those, b) at least the compusol site linked to states what it is supposed to attribute, unlike your 'source', c) forums are not reliable sources, d) mentioning of the eccowiki would be fine, but it does not need to be linked to, and it is not a sufficient self reference, e) and you can't provide independent sources stating that the forums and eccowiki are official, nor that compusol site is providing a unofficial bootleg and f) (I hope I am finished ..) we do not link to WHERE the software is downloaded, we link to a document TELLING something (and in there there is a download link, yes), that is quite unlike what you are constantly trying to do, where you link to main pages, direct downloads, and to pages which do not attribute what you state in the article (and even if they do, they are STILL not a suitable, reliable, independent source for it, you need MORE sources).

And if people don't know what a DDE API is (which they indeed stated), well, consider to explain that, we are, after all, trying to write an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear what is going on with this article recently. EccoPro is still being actively developed. The official modern, developed version is free. The official distribution site of the old software is free. Both are available at free to join, free to download, at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/ . the official specs for new development are at http://eccowiki.com .

Compusol charges money to allow access to a bootleg version of the 1997 release of ecco. Thus, any mention that there have been modern extensions, active development, etc. and that the original, and modern extension is free (no charge to join user group, no charge to download, etc.) takes away business from compusol which is trying to sell access to the software (they don't own it, didn't write it, have no rights in it, didn't develop or contribute to development... they took an old version they installed and 'packaged' it in an installer under the compusol name.

This article should have current, accurate information about the software. Accurate information is that it is being currently developed. Proper link is official distribution site. (the Ecco_Pro user forum) Proper reference for product specs is official product spec pages. (the eccowiki ).

The continued attempts to distort this article to hide the current development, to hide the official free distribution site and to push the compusol pay-to-download out of date version of software, is an attempt to hijack the article and use wikipedia to funnel potential users to a bogus commercial site. The official distribution site is proper link for software article. YSWT (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article that you may want would have a style that is totally contrary to Wikipedia's procedures with inappropriate language and inappropriate external links. In particular, WP:NOTADVOCATE spells out that this is not the place to fix unfairness in the world. You need one "official" website where you clearly state your case, however, that case cannot be made on Wikipedia (given that no independent reliable sources to verify the information is available). Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, your reply makes no sense to me. This a discussion of the Ecco_Pro article. Links to the official distribution site is proper per wikipedia policy, links to site distributing bootleg copies of software for a fee are not proper per wiki policy. The purpose here is to write an encyclopedia. This is an article in that encyclopedia. The topic is a software program. That program is copyright and although free at the official user group is not GPL. The current development of that software is free but not GPL. The proper links are the official distribution sites, not bootleg sites. Am not sure what about this sounds like a 'case' to you. It is discussion about this article, explaining some background facts to whose who have no background in the subject matter. YSWT (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, as I have said, and others as well, get consensus HERE before inserting links to forums, wikis, etc. etc.

You want a mention of the forums, and those can be included, when properly referenced that they then are the official forums. And then they get a sentence 'The support is now by an official forum<ref>the independent source</ref>', and not The support is now by an official forum<ref>the independent source</ref>', nor as 'The support is now by an official forum<ref>link to the forum</ref>'.

Please find independent sources, that goes for the forum you insist in including, it also goes for the compusol references (but at least the compusol references tell confirm what the sentence here says, but the page linked here does not state 'development on the object code continues at an ecco users' forum'. It is NOT proving the point! Please READ WP:RS, WP:V. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than improper attempts to promote the compusol site, there is no basis for removing the links to the official distribution site and official specifications pages for the software. You've made many such edits, such as removing official pricing information because it was in US dollars. YSWT (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting Beetstra's edits; it was explained that pricing information is not encyclopedic and the currency information has nothing to do with it. You are also not responding to requests that you find references that show that the Yahoo group and forum are official sites. The links discussion is misrepresented, it seems to me: how does "Note that I would still like all the compusol references to be replaced." (as Beetstra says above - and he has said similar things several times) translate to trying to push that site? Finally, why did you remove perfectly relevant maintenance templates? The lede is confusing, it includes a lot of jargon without even specifying that it's a software product - if I knew the first thing about the subject I would try to rewrite it but that seems pointless when there are people who do know something about it around. --bonadea contributions talk 05:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Beetstra originally removed the pricing months ago arguing that the currency info was in USD and therefore improper. Thus, not a misrepresentation of his edit in any way. 2. NOW, after the link between Beetstra's edits and compusol insertion has been made clear, Beetstra's actions and arguments have changed. For months, Beetstra only edited this article in conjunction with insertion of the compusol links. Please look at the article history for past 18 months and notice that Beetstra's edits (until this was noticed and expressed openly) for months would only be made in conjunction with compusol link inserts. 3. Is there a software product article you think is clear & outstanding. Am happy to use another template structure and fill in proper info. Am not the primary editor of this article, have just been involved in helping to correct details, keep the material current, and responding to attempts to transform the article into a spam list. YSWT (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, again, what did I ask you to do, over and over, and what did you do today? "get consensus HERE before inserting links to forums, wikis, etc. etc." (just to repeat it once again). I am sorry, but since you fail to discuss here the things that you are asked to discuss, you keep pushing sentences and information which you can't properly reference, I am really considering to report you to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, as your edits are continuously non-constructive, and are in violation of several of our policies and guidelines, and where I do give you a handle to continue upon, you fail to consider that (yes, a sentence like 'The support is now by an official forum<ref>the independent source</ref>' is certainly possible, and it may even be 'The support is now by an official forum<ref>the independent source</ref>'<ref>ecco pro forum</ref>' .. and if you can prove us that that is the official forum, it may be even a good external link. But please, discuss it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many comments here seem hostile and directed against individual editors. That is not welcoming nor encouraging for other editors. Many here seem to have a personal agenda, others seem to edit without sufficient familiarity of the subject matter. That said, after lenghthy review of other software articles, it is very clear that reference links to the official specs and distribution sites are appropriate as are appropriate external links. (E.g., the Lotus Agenda article).

It does seem that there is a directed effort to remove links to the active development of the ecco software, including the official specifications pages at the ecco wiki and the official distribution site. Since the software is developed by a group instead of a company, that may have led to some confusion with editors not familiar with the subject.

The location of the official distribution site seems a legitimate topic for discussion, but only relevant if discussed by those with some knowledge of the subject. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/ is the official distribution site for the latest development versions of ecco pro, and the eccowiki is the official spec website. For one thing, post-1997 development software can be download there, and no place else. Additionally, a licensed version of the 1997 package is downloadable there but does not seem to be available elsewhere. (I paid the compusol fee and downloaded from their site. While independent research is clearly not appropriate for article text, it seems that it would be very relevant for determining an issue as to the official download site. The site is distributing an installation package appears to be created by compusol, and installs a copy of the old 1997 version of ecco pro. The installed software files contains copyrights from Netmanage and other vendors and some portions of the installation appear to be missing (some correspondence manage files, and a dll for database management). The installed software is registered with the license distributed at the ecco_pro download site, ie., it appears to have been taken from the official distribution site and 'repackaged'. The text on the compusol site states that Netmanage allows compusol to distribute the software for non-networked home users, if no charge is made for the software. Those limitations are not disclosed on the download package, and I could find no way to download without paying. )

Even a cursory review of the sites makes clear that the official site for the actively developed version of ecco pro software is the Ecco_pro group with official documentation being at the Eccowiki site. The software development is clearly not commercial, and the actively developed software is clearly freeware. I am assuming that everyone has edited in good faith, and have contributed this with that outlook. 70.251.100.174 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking for original research, for us to put in a claim that site X is the official site (when it is not clear that is not the case), we need an independent reliable source that provide verification (because wikipedia is based on verification not truth) for that claim. This is particularly important when another editor has asked for verification that this is actually the case. Someone else has asked and now I am asking - what reliable sources note that either of the sites you mention are official? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing article content, with link to official distribution site. Official distribution site is not requiring an article about it in media sources. The software itself is noteworthy. I have looked at other software articles just now and most have links to distribution sites and did not find one with a reference for that link. YSWT (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Cameron Scott): Dear 70.251.100.174. First of all, you are right, the hostility does increase, as there is a refusal of many to read the policies and guidelines cited over and over. Forums are not reliable sources. Much of the info in the article was (and is) not even referenced. A continuous call for independent, reliable sources is continuously ignored.

No, you see wrong that there is an effort to remove it, and I have said that also above. I certainly think that there should be place for that, if and when that can be independently sourced. That is still failing.

Again, you say "http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/ is the official distribution site for the latest development versions of ecco pro, and the eccowiki is the official spec website." .. who has established that? Do you have references stating that. ANY forum can say that they are, and your claim, without an independent reference is just as much as any other. And I, again, did say that it could be included, when and if properly referenced. That it can be downloaded there is not a point, any forum can upload a version, I can even download it from that forum and upload it anywhere else. That does not make my site an official download site.

All in all, where to download is not important, how to install is not important, the fact that there is still ongoing development is, but that part can't be independently referenced. Nor are many of the references in the document actually stating what they are to be stating.

Comparing to other articles is a dangerous thing, 70.251.100.174. Some other articles in Category:Personal information managers are in a worse shape than this article (even Microsoft Outlook has a request for more references!), that is not a reason to do that here as well. I, again, ask for better references, for references that actually attribute what is said in this article, or even plainly for references that follow our reliable sources guideline. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of sourcing and references. If you think there is a different official distribution site or specifications site for the actively developed ecco pro software please list them. I think what you are doing is a form of disparagement of the official and free software in order to promote to bootleg site which is for profit. This page is for discussion. I care about the subject of this article, and I know about the subject of this article. That is my motive for contributing to this particular article. Beetstra, what is yours ? YSWT (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide a link where the current software can be downloaded, removing the link where the software can be download because you feel there has been no 'proof' that this is the official site is ridiculous. The ecco wiki (eccowiki.com) contains the detailed specs for the software. Can you find them anywhere else on the web ? The eccowiki also lists the official distribution location (it is also free) at the Ecco_Pro user group. Do you have any other source listing the distribution at some other location ? This is getting tiring. YSWT (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, YSWT, read WP:RS and WP:V .. you are the one wrong about the references. Discuss BEFORE reinclusion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some unusual editing going on in this article. First time I have ever come across the demand to include sourcing reference for the validity of an external link  !

Did anyone making those demands actually read this article or the referenced material ? Apparently not. The Wordyard reference, directly establishes that yes, the "Ecco_Pro" user forum is the 'official' site for the active development of Ecco Pro and the site where the software is distributed.

So then is all this about ? people bored ? Seems there is a bunch of 'fight' on this article out of pure boredom. THI (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wordyard is a blog and therefore is not a reliable source expect for statements about itself. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed them again, a) the references you re-included in reversion are not attributing the sentence (read WP:V and WP:RS; the external links are included after discussion, see WP:EL, the onus is on the person including them. And the concerns have here been clearly laid out. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution here was greeted with this on my talk page:

May I ask you to discuss the edits further before that can be included. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Beetstra's editorial board for approval of inclusion ? Is this why so few make return contributions here ?

Since 2006 contributors who seem to have knowledge of subject commented on page in favor of external links to relevant resources.

The recent edits, primarily Mr. Beetstras, have replaced these in eccopro article. With "Fred's" website? notice Fred's website basically Links pointing to compusol website with fake links below that.

Hostility to contributors, demands that contributors not edit without approval, removal of official download site links, persistent insertions to lead readers to compusol site.

Has no one raised this formally ?

Not support some edits made by Cameron Scott. Mr. Scott's edits appear only at intervals with Mr. Beetstra's. presume Mr. Scott edited in good faith. Reverting to Mr. Scott's edit. THI (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear here what my interest is here - the article could be about 12 foot gold plated dildos and I wouldn't give two hoots - my concerns are 1) Weasel words and puff are removed from the article, 2) Reliable sources are used, 3) any statement made can be backed via a reliable source. Beyond that, I simply don't care (which is actually the right and proper mind-set for a wikipedia editor). I generally only edit articles where the subject matter is of no interest to me, that's because, as a rule, people with a COI would prefer that an article is favourable to their POV. I try to act to counter that by the virtue of simply not caring. I will take a closer look at the compusol site and fred's site when I have a moment. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, I have raised this formally, and that is why new, established editors have come in. Moreover, I have raised these issues already for months. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And secondly, all policies and guidelines here suggest that when there is objection, that issues should be handled on the talkpage. I have objected, raised issues here, and got no response but a strong protection (close to ownership) to revert to old versions. Please read the policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra, your claims are at odds with your actions. You have threatened me personally at least 4 times. It now appears you threaten or warn off every contributor here who reverts your deletions and insertions (which end up at the compusol site. Looking over the history it looks like you have been been reverted by at least 4 other editors, other than myself.

I care about this topic, and very nicely ask you to please stop editing here. You are very obviously editing with a private agenda. You have removed mass links and inserted as a reference some guy's web page. You obviously feel that Fred's webpage is a reliable source. After looking carefully at Fred's webpage (which YOU feel is a reliable source and added it to the article to support multiple facts, in place of the previous references), according to Fred's webpage "member of the Yahoo Ecco_Pro forum (not to be confused with the original EccoPro, which at one time was filled with SPAMP) dug deep into Ecco, and came up with a way to enhance it through the EccoExt add-on. (from http://eccoextdoc.wikispaces.com)" The http://eccoextdoc.wikispaces.com is a readdressing for the http://eccowiki.com and the Ecco_pro group is the official distribution site. So your own 'reliable' source lists the eccowiki as the site with info on ecco development enhancements, and lists the site of current development for the software as the Ecco_pro forum.

Obviously you, Beetstra , are not going to agree with this. You clearly have a private agenda you want to impose on this article and you will offer some rationalization as you have previously. Your argument against the external link inclusion was that no reliable source established the links were legit external links. You have now inserted a source which you must believe to be reliable, otherwise you would not have both inserted it and reverted it when it was removed!! Your own source establishes both external links were legit and proper. YSWT (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you care about this article, you need to take advice. I am interested in software and fully understand the dedication and work you have provided for the product. I have not used the product, but I fully understand stuff like "DDE API", and I respect pashion. However, I also have a good understanding of Wikipedia's procedures, and I assure you that you have misinterpreted the advice that has been offered. You may have noticed that quite a few other people have complained about how Dirk Beetstra reverts link additions and other puffery, and you possibly think that means there is something wrong with Dirk. No! Dirk Beetstra is a very prolific spam-removal editor, and it is standard for such users to receive a steady stream of misguided complaints – all experienced editors are aware of that situation. If the disagreements on this talk page are ever escalated to a noticeboard, you will quickly learn that Dirk Beetstra, Cameron Scott, and I are providing good advice. The best procedure would to calmly discuss what material you would like to add to the article, and ask here about what is appropriate, and how progress might be made. There is absolutely no chance of a Yahoo group being regarded as the "official" website for a product without a good independent reliable source. Also, there is no chance that an article will provide a link to one supplier without providing a link to the other, and an article will not provide an unsourced commentary on which supplier is official or ethical or whatever. Make your own website (fix the wiki you mentioned above by providing all the detail you might want to include here), and I'll see if I can persuade other editors that the site would be suitable for the external links. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note the coincidence in timing between your own edits and Beetstra's. The edit history of this article speaks for itself (as do your comments about this article on other boards). As for complaints by many other editors against Beetstra, they seem to speak for themselves. For example, he has recently removed an external link to official web page of one of the members of a two member music group on the assertion that the link was unrelated to the group. Perhaps your argument is that editors who edit more, or mass delete, have some greater right, power, authority to edit articles on wikipedia ? You feel there are two tiers of editors ? Since at least two independent sources have already established that "Yahoo group being regarded as the official website for a product" your argument is empty of substance. Moreover, your POV is not in line with wiki policy. If you understand 'stuff like DDE API' please articulate why the public domain APIs for ecco should not be linked to this article. Am assuming when you write about 'pashion' that most likely you are either not a native English speaker, or are under 15 years of age, neither of which are barriers from contributing here as far as I know. YSWT (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I comment here when I think it might be helpful. I do not comment here when there is no reason (for example, if someone has already made a statement that complies with normal Wikipedia procedures). My last comment should be read literally: it has no political or emotional baggage, and each word means exactly what it appears to mean. Please just stick to discussing the issues and engage with points that have been raised (e.g. my last comment about the Yahoo group, or the need to omit editorial comments regarding some external links). Your speculation about me (or any other editor) is totally outside the scope of article talk pages. If you want to say that the word "passion" does not apply to you, just say it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, I may agree, if we reach consensus here, discuss edits, reference properly. I asked for independent sources, I asked for reliable sources. No, those don't come, all are forums and wikis. I had to search for them. Who is the specialist on Ecco Pro here? You should know about those documents. Again, it is not about what we THINK is true, it is about what we can reliably reference as being true. And that needs independent sources. I asked for that, you did not give them, and until that moment, it was all hearsay. I have never said that what you said was not true, I only asked for independent and reliable sources. We actually may be getting where you want, but it was not with your help. Thanks for that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone actually editing this article ? THI (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for discussion and sources .. ?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion ? Beetstraw free to reinsert link to Fred's page and revert external links ? On this discussion page, multiple reference to official development and distribution of active development for software. No sourcing provided for Fred's page. Beetstraw repeatedly revert to Fred page and remove official page.

Interesting why no editors. Topic no one cares about ? Beetstraw's threats to new editors and persistent reversions make hostility of article uninviting to new editors ? THI (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care beyond ensuring the article confirms to NPOV. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstraw?

Whatever, I am sorry, but I don't understand your remark. First, I have not repeatedly reverted, secondly, it is not the official site, it is a dedicated forum, and there are others as well, but the official link does not really exist here anymore. I have not been hostile, I have, in accordance with policies and guidelines, asked for discussion. I have initiated said discussions, I have explained what should not be here, what are NOT suitable references, etc. etc. If people insist in editing in that way, without WP:NPOV and without WP:RS, then yes, you can indeed call me telling people that hostile. Please read the policies and guidelines, and answer my questions, as that is something that no-one apparently can. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, you have no sourcing that the ecco_pro forum is not the official distrubution site. The references, including your own Fred's page, clearly estabilsh that the ecco_pro forum is the official distribution site for the active development of ecco_pro. Everyone involved in the eccopro community understands this. either you don't understand the subject, or you don't want to. The eccowiki.com is also the official documentation site for the active development of ecco pro. Your new tone is welcome, but for the record, you threatned me, and as far as I can tell, everyone who disagreed with your edits. You have acted as a bully in this article, and based on comments on your own talk page, others have expressed this about your behavior there. I personally regret your comments here that the ecco_pro site is not the official forum, I belive those comments are libelous and inappropriate. If you have any source for your claims please present them. YSWT (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten out of hand. Am offended by it and intend to do something about it.70.251.94.189 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everyone here except Misters Beetstra and Johnuniq. I vote to revert to Cameron Scott's edit. Anyone besides Mr. Beetstra and Mr. Johnuniq opposed ? GNTexas (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that both of you have not contributed a lot outside this subject (GNTexas, presume you edited as an IP earlier), and I think you do agree with me, that official links can be included in the external links section, and I asked for that discussion. GNTexas, this is not a democracy, we don't decide by voting but by discussion here, something I have asked for for a very long time.

YSWT, no, my tone did not change. And your remark "you have no sourcing that the ecco_pro forum is not the official distrubution site" is without merit. I also do not have any sources saying that grass is not green, and I do not have any sources that black is not white. We use sources to prove things, a lack of sources is not disproving anything. And I do agree that the ecco pro users forum is as close as possible to an official forum as can be. All I asked for is discussion, and establish what you say. I do not have sources for my claims, but you don't have any for yours (I had to get them myself ..).

I am not bullying, I was questioning the edits and tone of the article, and I think that several editors agreed with that. And I think that you have been told what comments on my talkpage mean, and why they occur. Your remarks are without merit, YSWT.

So, I think we established that the forum is an appropriate external link. I will insert it accordingly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that no one other than Misters Beetstra and Jahnuniq oppose reversion to the Camerson Scott / THI version, will update article. Note Mr. Beetstra's agreement as to conensus on the "Ecco_Pro" external link. Note other editors' consensus that article as desired by Misters Beetstra and Jahnuniq 'hides' the active development download and official sites. GNTexas (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see we've got all that square. Suggest including external link line for the public domain APIs for ecco, perl, Python, VB etc. Seems topical, informative and interesting to reader who that aspect of the software is relevant to. THI (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of opposition is not consensus. You are including references which are NOT WP:RS, find proper sources first. I have reverted GNTexas. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And GNTexas, you are not to choose whose input you do not like and hence think to ignore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the changes, you ONLY change references, practically no text (read it, THI! So 'seems topical, informative and interesting', yes, both versions are that). And to GNTexas, there is no 'hiding' of active development and official sites, we are not the yellow pages, and that there is active development is mentioned, properly referenced. So could we please get some policy and guideline based reasons for inclusion, I mean other than 'I don't like it'?? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, we are working on this article by building consensus. Reverting the article based on your personal POV is not helpful. I am now politely asking you to a formal mediatioin of our differences on this article. I ask that you stop making any changes until you obtain consensus here. THI (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then build consensus here, because that is not what is done, reverting to a preferred version is not building consensus. If that is to apply to me, who (at first in good faith) cleaned the article and tried to get this article in line with our policies and guidelines, who got only reverted, who asked questions, and who did not get any replies to questions I asked, then that also goes for all of you. Start mediation if you want, ask for an RfC, noting that I am about the only editor here who has at least tried to get mediation/uninvolved editors here. You are all free to edit, you are all free to improve the article, but I am sorry, we should not allow sources which are not reliable, or who are too primary for the statements they are supporting, nor other statements which are not in line with policy and guideline. And as I, Johnuniq, and even Cameron Scott have explained, inline external links are NOT in line with policy and guideline, and we have all said that certain statements are not reliable sourced, still that is what is being reverted to, over and over. I have asked for better sources, please, help me in finding them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, again you resort to straw man. You do not seem to even take the time to actually read what other editors discuss, as you seem to have not understood my comments-- referencing inclusion of API links, not versions of article. You have no support that Fred's page is better reference than the WordYard article. WordYard is a respected web publication, by a known, published, credible industry author. Fred's page lists dead links and many compusol links. Your basis for removal of the official documentation of current development is unclear. Your removal of the eccotools reference of available addons and replace with citation needed also not so helpful to article. etc. The eccotools listing of current add-ons is more authoratative than 'Freds' somewhat outdated web page. You have repeatedly reverted to your POV. Please stop that and start discussion prior to modification. If you want to replace the WordYard reference with Fred's page, make a case for that here and see if you can get consensus. THI (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The eccotools reference is not a reliable source, and is a primary source. As Cameron said "Wordyard is a blog and therefore is not a reliable source expect for statements about itself.", etc. etc. Those are NOT WP:RS, forums, blogs, etc. all fail it, and everything related to the usergroup or Wiki also fail as not being independent, and hence not being 'proof'. As I said before, anyone can post anything on forums, blogs, wikis and usergroups, and then say it here to be the universal truth. You are trying to say that I and JohnUniq are editing to our POV, but our statements are just ignored, even those of Cameron Scott, to support your POV.

Again, I have asked over and over for independent sources, and it is largely due to me that others are getting more involved, this edit blatantly reverts not only me, but also other editors, re-including the blogs, forums, wiki and user group links which I have been disputing in the first place! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, Beetstra, you are at odds with the other editors here on the following issues:

1. As a reference for the technical capability of a software plugin, is the official page of that software plugin an appropriate reference for its technical capabilities or functionality in an article about the software it plugs into. You say No.

2. Is a web publication by a respected industry expert, such as WordYard, where the expert writes on his own independent research in detail about a subject, an acceptable reference for facts listed in that web publication. You say No.

3. Where the official software specifications information is in a 'Wiki' format, does the format of the official site allow its use as a proper reference or external link to the specifications of the software which is the subject of the article. You say No.

4. If a software developer uses a 'forum' or 'blog' to document and distribute its software, are those proper references even if they are 'forums' and 'blogs' in web format. You say No.

5. For external links to public domain download of software APIs, does the link speak for itself, eg., a sourceforge download of the API, or is the link proper even if no newspaper has written that this is a link for the API for this software. You say No.

Beetstra, since you refuse to listen to those who are expert on this subject-- a subject you are ignorant of, you refuse to accept what the experts on this subject explain are appropriate references. You insist in immediate reversion to your POV. I ask you again, will you agree to a FORMAL MEDIATION of these issues. Either you or I can submit the matter for formal mediation, but that will only work if you also agree. THI (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors are extremely familiar with the scenario whereby an article with low visibility becomes a major cause for a group of people with an interest in the topic. You should ask questions and seek common ground rather than take an adversarial approach to experienced editors because it is highly likely that the other side has a better understanding of Wikipedia's practices. Mediation is not appropriate here because it is a simple matter of reliable sources. Please tone down your comments because Wikipedia requires civility: discuss how to improve the article and omit commentary on editors.

The next step would be to find something that you want changed in the article (and which has been reverted), then discuss that change, explaining how it helps, and responding to any comments made in favor of the reversion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, first, I will not step away from editing this article. I have not, and I will not perform any administrative actions (other than maybe using rollback or editing tools, which are not administrative) on this article or its editors (I believe I have only done minimally in the past, I know I blocked one editor a long time ago, and I have given some warnings, but the latter is not an administrative action). You are free to find mediation, ask for independent editors (I have asked that you (pl) try that before), I will participate in that. Feel free to ask for page protection in whatever level you think appropriate, if you think that inappropriate editing is going on, I will not use, as I said, administrative capabilities to circumvent those (which would only go for full protection anyway ..). I will follow the policies and guidelines there (except for emergencies and other reasons).

Now regarding the 5 points (allthough they have been explained and explained, but you (pl) don't seem to get it):

1, That is a primary source on a forum, blog, user group, wiki. First, primary sources are to be avoided (but could be used), but then they are on a forum, blog, user group, or wiki .. which fail WP:RS. It is not an appropriate source to use on these statements. You need WP:RS for the statements, if you only use the forums, blog, user group or wiki as a source, the whole statement is useless, worthless, and no-one can say if it is true or not. Adding such links See also WP:OR.

2, as I, Cameron Scott and Johnuniq have pointed out, blogs, in any form, are NOT reliable sources. I have, also after introduction of the questionable 'freds' page, asked for better sources. You, nor any other, have discussed that, have compared WordYard vs. Freds page (you until yesterday!), however, WordYard has, already for a long time, been discarded as it is a blog and fails WP:RS.

3, The wiki is prominently linked from the official site, so it is not useful to add it as an external link, moreover, it is a wiki, which is discouraged anyway (and even a forum would be discouraged, but passes since it is the 'official' forum (for as far as a user group maintaining an not-company-supported piece of software is an official page, but it is the best there is, that for sure) of the subject, at least that one passes WP:EL. More info: see WP:EL (read the intro for once, which asks for discussion if external link inclusion is questionable, which I initiated here, but to which none of you have ever given any answers other than 'look at the forum, of course it is the official one' type of answer), and WP:ELNO for what links are to be avoided.

4, no, indeed, they are not. They are primary sources, and they are on a blog. Again, anyone can start a blog, forum, wiki, user group on a piece of software or a subject, call it official, and use it then to substantiate information. I have, over and over, asked for better sources, but you, and all of you, seem to be very good in Wikipedia:LA,LA,LA-I'MNOTLISTENING. See my posts, I have asked that, Johnuniq have asked that, even Cameron Scott has reminded you .. get better sources!

5, no, that is not how I say it. We don't link to 'where to download', we link to official pages. Software has a link to the official page of the software, even if it is freeware or whatever, not the download link. And language like 'the patch can be downloaded here', or even 'the patch can be downloaded here<ref>download patch here</ref>. It does not matter if it is the official download place for it, it is inappropriate in any form. Here, and on other articles. If I encounter such links, I remove them. Again, see WP:EL, if the official site is linked, then a lot of other ones become superfluous.

You may notice, that Johnuniq, to who you don't want to listen either, and Cameron Scott (to who you do seem to want to listen, but to who you actually did not listen) say exactly the same (and I am not at odds with them .. see e.g. comment from Johnuniq; diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, [ diff 4] by Cameron Scott (look at the edit summaries); am I at odds with the others, or is it you that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?), your so called references fail WP:RS, they are WP:OR .. get better references (I've asked for that before, see e.g. this diff or this diff, but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

And then I don't mention a lot of things that I mentioned before. Inline external links (with which the article was riddled when I arrived) simply fail our WP:MOS, weasel words and other inappropriate language. But, as I said, you seem to follow WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT quite strictly, and when asked for better references or better info, none of you come up with that. All you come up with is reverting to older versions which contain the same problems that several regular editors (some administrators, which means that they are supposed to know the policies and guidelines on this encyclopedia, and I think that they have tried to point you there, but well .. ). And now you try to get there not by answering the questions, or to address the concerns, but by trying to just ignore and ask those editors to not edit the article anymore, so the ownership can go back to those with an interest in the software (which, and that you state correctly, know most about the subject, but who are failing to use that knowledge in line with our policies and guidelines), and the article can go back to states with inappropriate language, badly sourced statements, non-encyclopedic info, etc. etc.

So, as I said, I am willing to listen to mediation or other independent, knowledgeable (and preferably including some long standing) editors (hey, did I not ask that months ago, or another case .. (I know, suggested this policy as necessary reading before, but WP:LA,LA,LA-I'MNOTLISTENING)).

So now, THI, or YSWT, or whoever other interested, anyone can find (policy and guideline based, of course) merits why to use a certain source, or why to link to a certain page, or why to use certain language (and as I said, if it is policy and guideline based, then at least none of us can link you to policies or guidelines that say that you should not link there!!). I have asked that before, and am still waiting for answers that do not include 'go away, you should not edit the page'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC) (adapted a bit, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC); expanded further --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

I have tried to stay out of this for a while. I have stated my views on this page, and asked others to act. They have. Beetstra, part of the problem is the way you edit. Instead of discussing you insist in making your POV edits and reverting all others. If you were an expert, or even had some knowledge on the topic, your 'ownership' behavior towards the article would be more understandable, at least conceptually. I don't think the threats you made to me, or *basically every other editor who disagreed with you edits in this article* are appropriate. But taking the lead of others, let's put personality and your personal attacks aside and deal with the content stictly. Let's see if we can break it down even more simply. There is a dispute between all the editors here except you and Junic, whos edit history only occurs in conjunction with your edits, about many things, but let's work on one at a time. There are currently different views on Fred's page vs. the WordYard web publication. Would you agree to have both references listed in the article ? If not, would you agree to removing both references until there is resolution of the issue on this discussion page ? YSWT (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, I have asked for discussion, see the previous post here, I have initiated discussion, see the above post, I have asked questions, see the above post. None have ever been answered, neither have questions or remarks of others. It was the style of the article, which you, and some others, want to retain, but which is not in line with policy etc. It is all linked above. Note, YSWT, I have initiated several discussions here, none of them answered. Or is this also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?

The article is using both references (!!), the only sentence where the use of WordYard vs. Freds page is disputed is on a sentence where there is also a Guardian reference. We could consider removing Freds page there, indeed. Removing them all from the other two would leave even more unsourced sentences, and listing them both, well, the reference is supposed to be attributing the sentence it is on, if Freds article says something that WordYard is not saying, then WordYard is there not a suitable reference, so that does not make real sense, does it? Thé solution would be, finding better references ... but I have asked for that before. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, one of the problems with your constant reversions to your POV instead of actually contributing to the article, is the 'mess' you leave behind. You replaced the citation "Rosenberg, Scott (4 September 2007). 'Ecco Pro — back from the dead, again'. WordYard." with "Scott Rosenberg, Wordyard, "Ecco Pro" Sept 4, 2007". There is a consistent pattern with the edits you have made to this article over a long period of time. Your edits remove, or hide the information that there is new development, in this example an article entitled "Ecco Pro - back from the dead" you 'rename' to simply "Ecco_Pro". The information you hide, the new active development, is something you've done consistantly enough that I have formally complained about it previously on this talk page. I am very curious to see the wikipedia policy that suggests your selective deletion of part of a referenced article's title is approiate. YSWT (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, YSWT, on this page there may indeed be coincidental traffic between Johnuniq and me, but that is purely since there are at that time active discussions. Have you actually looked at how many other pages we edit, and where we do not encounter each other? Regarding ownership, YSWT, I am trying to get the information here in line with our policies and guidelines, I don't care what it is about, I edit on many pages, doing the same. And Johnuniq and Cameron Scott do the same. I don't see how my view substantially differentiates from Bonadea, Cameron Scott, and Johnuniq, to name a few (all four long term editors!), it does differ from the many editors whose mojority of edits is in this area, and/or who have only a handful of edits on their name, and then claim that all those long term editors are at odds with previous claims or themselves. And note that I only revert when the edits are reverting to a state where the discussions on this page are all about, or which reinsert things which are under dispute here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, you only revert ... ? You have repeatedly reverted immediately to your POV multiple times over at least 4 editors, and left us threat letters. Not so cool behavior. You 'reinstate' to your POV, which you appear to feel is superior to all others. Personality aside, do you agree with the suggestion to include both references in the article for now ? THI (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't have to read a wall of text *Which* two references are people talking about? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A guy named Fred's page vs. Word Yard. diff

Some comments on the WordYard reference (the Fred's page really should be taken out):

• Wikipedia expressly permits as appropriate exactly this type of reference. "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report)." WordYard is more than equivalent to Language Log.

• Established editors in other articles have recognized and used WordYard as a reference in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Google_Making_Us_Stupid%3F ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Harvard_Crimson .

• Scott Rosenberg is an established journalist, notable on wikipedia. Fred of Fred's page is who/what exactly ? THI (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I see we are getting somewhere. First the remark "I only revert ... ?". I explained that, I asked for discussion on the references, when then those references that are under dispute are being re-inserted WITHOUT that discussion, thén I revert .. and that is indeed a consistent pattern.

But as I said, we are getting somewhere: Good, a proper analysis based on policy and guideline (please be a bit careful with Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F-type arguments ..). The good thing is, the reference is already used, so that can stay, I have replaced one instance of Fredshack with WoodYard (with little adaptation of the sentence), and replaced the others with {{fact}}-tags, where they were not properly being supported by WoodYard (one case is talking about 'recent' which the WoodYard post is not really, other about hotsyncs which are not named by Scott Rosenberg (journalist)). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Beetstra, now for the external links to the public domain APIs for ecco. Your opposition seems to be lack of reference to establish the link. Is there any written wikipedia guideline that has led you to this POV ? If you look at a few hundred sofware articles, you'll notice a few hundred articles with external links to resources that are not 'referenced'. The existence of the resource is its own reference. Guidelines provide as proper "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject ". The API structure in Python, perl, VP, etc., is certainly relevant to understanding of EccoPro. There is consensus among prior and current editors, aside from yourself and Mr. Junic who seems to have always exactly mirrored your opinion on every issue to date. I agree an article should not be a 'link farm', and that external links should be kept short. This would be a second line, ie a two line external link section, not excessive in my view. THI (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, links to the API do nothing to help a general reader understand the subject. They should not be included. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cameron Scott that links to the API are unnecessary, they are only of interest to programmers wishing to write a program interaction. Nuujinn (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The test for external link inclusion is not helping the general reader understand the subject. We are not writing an encyclopedia only for grade school students. If a professional or researcher is looking for detalied factual information on the subject of this software, the technical specifications of API is very relevent. Moreover, for many actual users looking for information, the API information is of interest. I agree that laying out the technical specs for each API is overboard, thus appropriate and helpful to point external link to the avialble public domain API information for reader to link to. This is a software product used by programmers. Thus, programmers wishing to write a program interaction are directly topical to this subject.YSWT (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that majority of similar software articles include external links to 'speciality' applications related to the software. For example, The Bat! includes link for "The Bat! Sync - synchronize The Bat! and Windows Mobile". Clearly that is only relevant to windows mobile users, and not the 'general reader'. Still seems helpful link which provides detail info on subject related to, but over scope of article. Another example, MS One Note article includes "3rd-party client for iPhone" external link. Only relevant to those with iPhones, but still seems helpful to general article. Could give endless examples of how external links are used in wikipedia in relationship to software programs. Most outline software does not have APIs allowing external programic access. This is something very unique to Ecco_Pro. Thus, as providing more detailed info on unique software feature, my view is that this is not only appropriate, but important for the article. YSWT (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those links should be removed on sight and I have removed them from the articles you have mentioned. Also if you don't understand that this is an encyclopedia aimed at general readers you have gone wrong somewhere. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Where do you find such a wikipedia guideline ? (2) if you just will open and read software articles you will find hundreds and hudreds more links just like those, nearly every software article I looked at has them. Maybe you are 'right' and the mass of software articles are 'wrong', or maybe your POV on this is not actually in line with actual consenus on wikipedia. I wonder if you think wikipedia should conform to the consensus of the few hundred, or few thousand 'wikipedians' who edit daily, or to the hundreds of thousands of contributors who don't. YSWT (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, insulting other editors is not appropriate. You asserted link appropriateness criteria based on interest of general readers. YSWT asked for a reference to support that criteria. Instead of providing one, you offer insult that YSWT has gone wrong. If the criteria is based on a wikiguideline, please reference. "I know it, and if you don't you are stupid and don't know what you are doing" is not a reference nor valid argument for any position. THI (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, for again, the guideline, that many editors have cited over and over, is WP:EL, those links are NOT appropriate. Yes, it is based on the interest of general readers, which has been set into WP:EL. This page is about Ecco Pro, not about the API. If the API is worth an own article, then that is the place to place that link, here should be a link to the main site of the product, and there a link could be of interest.

The discussion regarding the page being to specific, and not general enough, is somewhere down there. We are not writing a manual, not a product specification, whatever, we are writing an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, 'somewhere down there' is not a reference. You have provided no reference to support your argument here. WP:EL states "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics ... online textbooks)". The API links are providing deatiled information about the program DDE specs for different langauges, just like an athlete's stats. At this point, Beetstra, you have provided no actual guideline to support your POV. You've resorted once again to 'I know better than you, somewhere their is such a guideline, take my word for it". That is not a proper reference. YSWT (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, the page is not DIRECTLY linked to the subject, the subject of the page is Ecco Pro, not the DDE APP. Just like all the other examples that Cameron Scott helpfully cleared out, those are not directly linked to the subject. Read the guidelines, and these are things that have been explained over and over. As an example, all subpages of audi.com contain relevant information on Audi, but we only link the top level domain. The rest is linked from there. That is the page that is about the subject, although all the others are also related to the subject, they are not directly linked. These are not statistics, these are specifications of parts of the program, which already are available from the main page of the program.

The reference to 'somewhere down there' was to the other part of the discussion, which is on this page, bottom thread at (this moment), that is what I meant with 'somewhere down there'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe a case of understanding of article subject. One major part of the Ecco pro software is its DDE API. because native DDE is not so easy nor relevant for most uses, APIs for ecco have been developed in other langauges, such as perl, Python, and Visual basic. The details of the interaction of Ecco Pro with perl or Visual basic, are an important part of the subject of Ecco Pro, but a bit tedius I think to lay out in an article. So, reference to the public domain API for Ecco provides a link to this detailed information. Each link is to a general subject, eg., API in perl context, and that link provides much detailed information about Ecco pro.

Notably, although references have been provided showing the propriety of the link, you've still not provided an actual guideline text in opposition. Also, although detailed basis for inclusion have been explained, you've provided no reason that makes sense for your opposition. Giving an example of Audi is not a substitute for a proper reference. Wikipedia.org is one website. Yet, multiple references and links to differnt pages of wikipedia appear in hundreds of thousands of articles here. Clearly, there is no rule to link only to the TLD of a website referenced. Also, the tactic of 'just say anything' to support your POV is not appropriate. Also, making untrue statements is also not helpful. Although not a proper reference for your agrument in any case, the truth is that the Audi article actually has external links BOTH to the audi.com homepage AND to subpages of the audi.com site, # Global corporate portal to the TLD, and # Audi in motorsport to a specific page at audi.com about motorsport and audi. Thus, you've clearly disproved your own argument with your example. YSWT (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and btw, the Ecco API does not appear at any home page, and the *only* place the current API is avialable (other than the specific PD APIs desired added as external link line) is http://forums.eccomagic.com/forum/Attachments/Ecco_API_v3.eco which is the current native DDE Gateway API in ecco file format. YSWT (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it contains detailed information, that is all fine, but that detailed information can be found via the official site that is listed. We link to audi.com, on Audi, not to audi.com/A4, as that is about the A4 (and it would be a good link on the page on the Audi A4), not about Audi (and the example that other links are there does not mean that they need to be here, they might not need to be there either; I'll have a look, as it seems that these links are improperly on Audi; now removed). Here, we link to the forum, which is about Ecco Pro, and not to the link about the DDE API, as the latter would be about the DDE API, not about Ecco Pro. We are not here to explain how parts of the software work, for that we refer you to the official pages. Any word processor (as an example) has specific functions, we are not linking on those pages to the explanations of the official functions, if it is notable (as established by independent references), then we mention it here, but we do not link to it.

YSWT, Forums, wikis, user groups, etc. are on the list of 'links to avoid', for obvious reasons, except if they are the official forum (or whatever, and not superseded by an even more official site, we do not link to both 'audi.com' and 'forum.audi.com', as 'audi.com' is the official site, which will link in itself to the forum, similar goes for britneyspears.com and britneyspears.blogspot.com); here, that is not the problem, eccopro.com is not there). So .. from that guideline rule, we avoid forums and user groups except if they are the official forum. Good, how do we establish if something is the official forum. I was asking whether that could be established as the official forum, so that is the point. The only answer I got in the beginning, while I was asking whether it could be established, was 'look at the forum, of course it is the official forum. YSWT, ANYONE can say that a forum is the official forum, that is not proof. I was and am not questioning if that forum is about Ecco Pro, I was asking if it is actually the official forum (and you know that the old forum, compusol and 'your' forum all three can claim that they are the official site, and you also know that that was a problem earlier!!). You call it my POV, well, I think it is the POV of WP:EL, which has been established by a large number of editors.

The forum link that you gave here is linked from the mainpage of the user group, I must confess, the DDE API is there difficult to find, but that does not mean that we need to link it here, that may be a problem of the layout of the user group, the forums and the eccowiki (which all in all I find difficult to go through, this software would really need a dedicated site with all information, in combination with the current forums, user groups and wikis. But that dedicated site is not here on WiIkipedia, that is not in the goal of this site. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again Beetstra, your argument is erroneous. The official site that is listed does not contain the dde detail. Your argument that Ecco Pro's API is nota bout Ecco pro makes no sense. That's like saying a ball players' batting statistics are about his statistics and not about the ball player. YSWT (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'The official site that is listed does not contain the dde detail' .. If the 'official site' does not contain that detail, then Wikipedia surely does not have to do that. YSWT, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a software spec or a manual. This software needs an own, official homepage with all that type of detail, Wikipedia is not the place for that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an 'official' site contains has nothing to do with appropriate content for an article. If Beetsra you have any reference for this, please provide. Beetstra you offer now objective criteria or standard for differentiation between encyclopedia content and spec content, only your subjective POV. External link reference to DDE specs is not 'level of detail' added to article but reference for reader to further detail elsewhere. THI (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, indeed, Wikipedia has nothing to do with the content of an 'official' site, but we have our policies and guidelines what is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. We are not writing program specs, or an internet directory, not the yellow pages, or a product manual. They have been linked over and over, but see WP:5P as a top level for all information on what we are trying to do here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, could you now find proper arguments which are not based on 'look it is there as well, even though others say that it should not be there either, so lets include it here as well', but inclusion arguments which are policy based? Or did you not see that I have been asking that before. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, actually, the express policy based basis for inclusion have been listed. Again, WP:EL states "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics ... online textbooks)". The API links are providing deatiled information about the program DDE specs for different langauges, just like an athlete's stats. At this point, Beetstra, you have provided no actual guideline to support your POV. You've resorted to just not listening as a discussion technique. Not so effective. I have listed here again, guideline support for inclusion. You've listed no guideline to exclude, nor valid argument or discussion for exclusion.YSWT (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is your argument all the time, all your sites follow that, but I have given you the counter argument. this article is about Ecco Pro, not about the dde, it is indirect. That type of information belongs on an official homepage of the software, we are not writing software specs here, or a software manual. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra your argument makes no sense. Every aspect of Ecco Pro is directly on subject. You offer no objective basis why DDE is not significant to topic. You ignore the comparison to external link to player's stats compared to DDE reference stats link for a software program. THI (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. But we are not writing software specs here, we are not writing a software manual here. That is the job of other sites, e.g. the official site of the software. It is not Wikipedia's problem that the official site does not contain that much detail, it is not directly linked, it is not more directly linked than the Audi A4 is to Audi .. we are not a linkfarm for every link. You may think that my argument does not make sense, but I see a handful of other, long term editors (who edit a wide range of subjects) drawing the same conclusion: that link does not belong there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, your argument is circular and unsupported by any policy or logical argument. Resort to 'experienced editors say so' is not an argument. The experience or lack thereof of any contirbutor does not make any particluar agrument or POV more or less persuasive. The discussion is for a second line to the external links section, your 'linkfarm' argument is not credible. Software manual argument another red herring. Issue is adding external link to DDE specs. You've offered no credible argument for exclusion. Clear and credible arguments have been offered for inclusion. Just as article on ball play is not an article about his lifetime stats, appropriate, per wikipedia guidelines, to provide external link to those detailed specs. Thus, for a software article, external link to detailed specs is clearly appropriate and helpful to the article. If you have a legitimate argument, or can refer to an specific language in any specific wiki guideline, please do so. YSWT (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, [[WP:OTHERCRAP|other stuff exists, so I'm not concerned with other articles, but I will point out that your counter examples are links to application, not APIs, which are pretty esoteric. Part of my job is programming, so I'm familiar with the issues. It's very easy for a programmer to google for ecco pro api, and my thinking is that the external links should point to general, rather than specific data, and ideally to a high level on a site with lots of data about the software. I think mentioning the API briefly in the article body is quite sufficient. Nuujinn (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google for Ecco Pro API does not reveal the public domain APIs. (other than via wiki mirrors!). Ecco's DDE interface and functionality is an important part of the software. Obviously, the article itself can deal with an overview of the functionality of the DDE interface. It seems, to my POV at least, a simple link to the public domain APIs to the interface provides reader with enough additional material to be able to further research/understand the interface. There is also a datafile (.eco format), at the eccomagic forums that details the DDE interface.

If the article reader says, oh, this DDE interface functionality seems interesting, where do I learn more about it, the article does not provide an reference or link. Since the interface is a huge part of Ecco Pro, I think it really hurts the article. YSWT (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative for referring to Google, a link to a {{dmoz}} might be an option. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Though it is also prominently linked from the forum, I do think that it is easy to find it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC) .. well, not prominently, my mistake. But still, all info is available via the user group already linked. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could not find these links on DMoz nor user group. We are discussing links to public domain DDE apis for perl/python/VB. THI (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The eccotools.com board contains extensive list freeware/shareware extensions. More relevant than DMoz ? THI (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DMoz directories can be created, and that is where linkfarms are appropriate. When the DMoz would contain the whole set, and then be linked from Wikipedia, that could be an option. Including here is not an option / necessary, the main/official page is linked, the others are available from there (which is actually already an argument against the DMoz .. ). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this section reads like a howto, my feeling is that it should be trimmed down a bit. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am assuming you've actually used the software ? The current version is:

The active views are also the report views. Information is entered in "items," (text blocks up to 32 kilobytes, or a Windows OLE object (such as a .bmp file, Microsoft Word document, Microsoft Excel document, etc.) that can be arranged hierarchically, as an outline.

Each item can be linked to one or more "folders" (by manual assignment, basic text matching, or with a free 'addon extension' by complex regular expression, relational lookup, computational, and Lua, Perl, JavaScript, VBScript, or Python programmatic assignments) which function as a fields in a database.

Thus, a user could write a note that read "Meeting with John Smith about Generic Project" and by placing it in folders named "Calendar," (assigned to a certain date), "John Smith," and "Generic project," the user could relate nearly any item to any other. This, combined with the built-in networking ability allowing free or controlled sharing of files and parts of files (online and offline), are seen as the core of ECCO's functionality. Each item, and each of that item's sub-items can be assigned to thousands of different folders of various types (text, numeric, date, pull-down, or checkmark).

Assignments to a date folder can include complex repeating date rules, alarms (including file/program execution), show until marked done options, advance notice options, advance warning, and follow-up rules and alarms. The items displayed in the Views can be filtered based on multiple criteria. Very basic auto-assign rules can be applied for each folder in native ECCO Pro, and more complex rules can be auto-assigned by use of a free add-on extension.

With a small fix, a hot link to any file can be added anywhere to the outline. When the user double clicks on the link, the item appears. Any file can be placed directly inside of the ECCO data file. OLE objects appear, can be edited, and then saved within the ECCO file. With the MagicView add-on, RTF/HTML pages can also be attached as folder values inside of the Ecco data file, or linked to external data sources.

The use of outlines and columns can be used to create user interfaces. Outlines are compiled by collecting the items in a folder. Users can display these outlines with columns relating to other folders, very much like a spreadsheet. The use of other features such as filtering and "views" allow it to be customized to meet a wide variety of purposes such as Getting Things Done, project management, bibliography handling, contact management, project management, and printable checklists.

ECCO provides native PDA support (for Palm and Treo devices)[3] and sharing over a network, and 3rd party add-ons provide for pocket PC (windows) and outlook hot syncs.

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.

What specifically you see is a "how to" as opposed to explaining or providing a simplified example of functionality ? (If an editor hasn't used the software and the article text is confusing in some ways or unclear, is helpful to point out in what ways so that those with knowledge on the subject can build on and improve existing article contents. Suggestions about how to describe functionality by an editor with no actual knowledge of the functionality, unless relating to word usage, etc., does not seem so helpful. ) The software is free, there are free tutorials, and free help and support is available for the software. Very much invite those interested who have not yet done so, to actually use the software or carefully study the documentation, especially understanding the advanced functionality, and using that understanding to contribute to this article. YSWT (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And while on the subject, the functionality section skips the advanced functionality details of folder auto assignment, of the programic folder rules, of the functioning of dependent items, etc. These functions are detailed in the official active develpment documentation, which happens to be in wiki format. My POV is that an external link to the official documentation is helpful and appropriate. Interested in Nuujinn's thoughts on this, please. YSWT (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, paragraphs 3-5 are the ones I'd drop from the article, they read like product literature or a manual, and WP is not a manual. As you point out, there is already lots of free help out there on use of the software, so there's little need for it here. Also, there's really no need to reproduce sections of the article here. Nuujinn (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, 1. the language in question is a ulta-compressed overview of functionality, and nothing like a manual. 2. the purpose is to explain / describe what ecco_pro is, to provide an overview of basic functioning. The text is very much a very global overview, compressing about a thousand pages of functionality from manual into 3 paragraphs. Certainly this is not a reproduction of sections of manual. But, maybe the text needs to be expanded on each point, if the intended meaning is not clear.

Let's see if we can deal with it specifically, starting with first concept in issue:

Thus, a user could write a note that read "Meeting with John Smith about Generic Project" and by placing it in folders named "Calendar," (assigned to a certain date), "John Smith," and "Generic project," the user could relate nearly any item to any other.

This is trying to explain a basic function of how items (or sub items) of any outline can be related to any other item(s)/sub-item(s). Better clarification for this sentence might be:

Each item can be manually (or by simple or progrmatic 'auto-assignment rules') assigned to any of up to about 60,000 "folders". The assigment can be digital (true or false), a numeric value, a text value, a value from a pulldown list established for that "folder", or a date value (fixed, calculated, relative to other dates, or repeating; and without or without a time of day setting). Each item/sub-item can be assigned freely to multiple folders.

So, for example, an outline item or sub item could be "Meeting with John Smith about Project X on Sept 1" and then (1) manually assigned (via columns, via drag & drop to an outline of folders, via automatic form assignment, via manual input via a pre-defined form of various folders, or manually by selecting one or more items at a time in the 'folder outline'), and or (2) automatically assigned, for example by a rule in the "Meeting" folder to assign date for items containing "Meeting with" and a date value (such as Sept 1), as well as the "Project X" folder (auto-assigning based on that keyword), and the "John Smith" folder. Automatic folder assignements can be made based on other folder values assigned to the item, or to logical programic logic based on the item text, time item is entered, regular expression matches, etc.

The Meeting folder could be set up to include alarms, advanced & followup notice reminders, etc. Any date folder can be set to have items containing values in that folder to appear on ecco's calendar and/or tickler views. The "John Smith" fodler could be set to show up in searches of the ecco "phonebook", as a phonebook item.

Each folder (of every type, date, text, etc.) can be viewed by itself or in combination with any other folder(s) in custom "views", which are live views showing the items assigned to the folders (and if desired the outline parent context and sub-items of those items). The views can include as live edit columns the assigned values for the items displayed. Calculations based on values in multiple items within the same folder, or multiple folders of the same item can be derived based on programic rules or perl/python/Lua/VB/JS/ruby scripting. The calculations be be outline aware, including awareness of parent and children values (text and folder) for items in the outline, as well as assigned related or "dependant" items.

OK. This has left out a lot, but maybe is a more accurate overview of the assignment functionality addressed in this first sentence. Let's deal with this aspect of functionality, and then address each other in turn, as there is a lot of compression in the current text, that maybe is too compressed, and lost the explanation of overview as to what the software actually does. As for the above suggested/tenative/first rev., replacement text for the first sentence in question, your thoughts Nuujinn ? YSWT (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is that the language used is not ultracompressed, in fact, for an encyclopedia it's pretty wordy. WP is an encyclopedia, and our jobs is to use reliable and verifiable sources to provide articles on topics. Your expansion of the sentence in question does read exactly like a manual or product literature, especially as you are walking the user through an example. The goal here is to describe what Ecco Pro is, not how one uses it. Also, we require sources for this information, if there aren't any, it should really go. Nuujinn (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujin, permit me. (1) What is your POV on the distinction between what a software program is and how one uses it ? (2) The above describes what can be done, not how to do it. (3) Above statements can be sourced to printed reference materials, the official documentation, nothing above is newly discovered. THI (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)Our purpose here is not to provide extensive detail on how the software is used, but rather an overview of what it is, including some information on features. I think this section, as it stands now, reads like product literature. I'll propose a version soon. 2). I disagree, since there's an unncessary example case worked into the description, and it's pretty verbose. 3). If you have access to these printed materials, could provide in line citations referencing same including page numbers? Those would be primary sources, so we have to be careful in how we use them, but careful use of a primary source is better I think than no source. I would point out that if this material is sourced from "the official documentation" it is, at least not to me, not at all surprising that the section reads like product literature or a manual.... --Nuujinn (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, 1. thanks for your contributions to the article. 2. you've responded "its pretty verbose" on the issue of whether the text was a "how to" or description of functionality. 3. What ecco does is extremely complex. There is no other program that does what it does. Explaining what it does is not so simple, and good we are working on it. Eliminating complexity of expression is very helpful, elimination complexity inherent in functionality as a short-cut to elimination complexity of expresson is not so helpful. See my commends below. YSWT (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's my proposed version. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have made accuracy and detail suggestions on a paragraph by paragraph basis, not addressing if this is leaving out material, etc., just correcting accuracy of proposed version. Much missing here in explain what is ecco. Ecco is a program that allows manipulating items based on dependencies. Ecco is a database that is outilne aware, ie., assigment of item and 'folder' values can be based on an items location in the outline, and the content of its parent or children items. This is some key functionality that is not addressed. Ecco is also a collaborative outlining program, allowing real time collaboration over a network at the same time as off-line collaboration. This key functionality is missing from text also.

I think the automatic functionality is also not described, such as automatically reading date from text and assigning to calendar, etc. Also does not address ability to have same text in different outlines ordered based on different criteria, such as in writing a paper, and allowing instant re-arrangement views based on different criteria. Also, the shared calendar, resource calendaring, and access restricted outline or phonebook sharing functionality may be worth mentioning as well. YSWT (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all necessary to address all of the functionality of the software--we are not writing a manual, tutorial or usage guide. Our goal is to provide a concise description of the software. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. To my POV the article should set out those functions that make the software unique in functionality. What is this software for ? What does it do ? Other software such as a word processor is something known and understood. Ecco is something different. Programic text parsing and folder value assigment seems to me to be an important/key function of ecco. Date parsing is also very important for those using ecco's date scheduling/date mapping side. Eg., you can dump in a series of documents as items, and have a timeline created automatically, etc. So, key features such as text parsing for regex and date recognition seems signficant to general functionality. YSWT (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that level of detail is not encyclopedic. I work in IT, and most large and well established programs have lots of special features. We're not here to document Ecco's functionality, but rather to give an overview. Nuujinn (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most well established programs fall into standard cataegories of programs. So it easy to describe MS Word, it is a word processor. But let's say there were no other word processors, and word was the only one. How would you decribe its functionality to an audience that had only experience with typewriters. You'd have to explain that you could see the text on screen as it would appear on the document, that you could delete words, mark sections of text and move them around, save diffent versions of the document, etc. Obviously, since word processors are common today, it would be silly to include those things in a word processor's article. But for the first word processor ever, these things would be important topics, perhaps. YSWT (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information is entered in "items," which are text blocks containing up to 32 kilobytes, or a Windows OLE object such as a .bmp file, Word document, or Excel document. Items can be arranged hierarchically, as an outline, and can be linked to "folders" either manually by the user or automatically using regular expressions, relational lookup, or logic defined by a script. Date folders support assignments enabling dates rules and a variety of alarms and notifications. Items displayed in Views can also be filtered, and although the native program supports only basic auto-assign rules, use of program extensions enable more complex rules.

Information is entered in "items," which are text lines or blocks containing up to 32 kilobytes of RTF text or a graphics image, or a Windows OLE object of any size, such as Word document, Excel document, or any file packaged in an OLE wrapper by Ecco's built in OLE packager. OLE objects which support preview, appear in the Ecco item as a scaleable preview of that object. Items can be arranged hierarchically as an outline, and items at all levels of the outlines can be linked to "folders" either manually or automatically using regular expressions, relational lookup, or logic defined by a script. There are six basic types of folders: Date, Numeric, Text, Pull-Down Selection, Check Box, and RTF (with the MagicView extension). Date folders support assignments enabling dates rules and a variety of alarms (including running external applications at a set time or interval) and notifications, and can be marked done. In addition to the RTF text contained in any item, each text folder the item links to can contain contain up to 32 kilobytes of text per forlder assigment. RTF folders can contain up to 8 Megabytes of data per folder assignment, or be linked to external data sources.

"Text folders can contain up to 32 kilobytes of text per forlder assigment." is redundant, it's covered in the first line. When you say there are six types of folders, that may be Ecco jargon, but normally one would refer to a data type. What you call Binary is normally called a boolean, since all computer data is at one level or another binary. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're not familiar with the program, and that's helpful too. The text should be more clear. have fixed above, hopefully is now more clear. The first line is size of the RTF item text. In addition multiple text folders can be linked, each allowed 64k of text per folder assigment.

Boolean is too confusing, so apparently is Binary not clear. Have renamed Check Box which is proper ecco lingo, and hopefully more clear. Also, with mass micros today, it may seem that all computer data is binary, actually there are trinary systems (off/low/high). maybe 'digital' is the better word... YSWT (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information is displayed in 'views'. There are three basic types of views: Calendar, Phonebook, and Folder based. Views can be combined so that multiple views can be arranged on a single 'notepad'. Items are displayed in Views based on the folders shown in the view and are displayed either in their outline context (with parent items, if any, of sub-items showing), or de-contexted (showing just the items linked to that folder, and optionally that item's outline children, if any). The phonebook views display decontexted items based on the alphabet, search box or field query. The calendar views display decontexted itemes in a calendar format based on the date assigments of any date folders linked to any items for the relevant period of the calendar displayed, either linerally, or in block dated format. Folder views show items listed in outline format under the relevant folders selected for that view, showing only items (with our without their context in the overall outline) with a value linked to that folder.

Views can be filtered to include or exclude items or item trees with both regular expression and programic filters. Views can also show any folder values as columns, and can be optionally sorted based on combinations of folder values.

What you mean by "decontexted" is unclear, and most of this is incomprehensible if you do not know the software. Please keep in mind that we're supposed to give any overview.--Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have reworded above, more clear ? YSWT (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outlines and columns can be used to create custom user interfaces. Outlines are created by collecting items in a folder, and users display these outlines with columns related to other folders, very much like a spreadsheet. The use of features such as filtering and custom views enable a variety of uses such as project management, bibliographies, contact management, and task management.

Folder data can be entered in several ways, including custom forms, columnual data entry, and selection of folders from a folder outline which can be edited and formatted like the item outliens. Outlines are created by the items which are linked to any folder. The comination of items linked to any folder determines the outline content. The resulting outlines can be displayed with columns showing the folder values of the items, very much like a spreadsheet. The use of features such as calendar assigments, filtering, auto-assigment rules, and custom views enable a variety of uses such as project management, bibliographies, contact management, information and document management, and task management.

Again, this is too much information, and confusing. The first line is just to say you can enter data from different points. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! YSWT (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecco Pro provides native PDA support (for Palm and Treo devices)^[1]. Ecco Pro supports file sharing over a network, and third party additions provide support for syncing with pocket PCs and Outlook.^{[citation needed]} Ecco Pro also supports a DDE API which exposes many elements of the database to external manipulation.

Ecco Pro provides native PDA support (for Palm and Treo devices)^[2]. Ecco Pro supports both on and off-line networking either over a network, over a shared device such as a USB drive, or via email. Changes on networked systems are buffered so that syncronization is maintained accross the network even when access is intermittent, and even if no two systems access the master network at the same time. Third party additions provide support for calendar and phonebook syncing with pocket PCs and Outlook. Ecco Pro also supports a DDE API which exposes many elements of the database and outline structure to external manipulation.

"Ecco Pro supports both on and off-line networking either over a network, over a shared USB device, or via email." This makes no sense. Networking cannot occur off line, since you're not on a network if you're off line. When you say "usb device", do you mean any other type of device than a usb drive? And if not, how is this any different than any other software, since anyone can transfer data from one computer to another with a usb drive? The same applies to email, I routinely share data programmatically with email. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hopefully fixed USB drive language-- good point. 2. well, you certainly *CAN* network off line, but aside from that, ecco allows you to network on very slow 'packet' movement networks. Even as slow as sending update information via email. Ecco caches modifications and updates networked users when they connect, 'buffering' the network. Have re-worded,hopefully it explains the basic ecco concept of networked files, even when the networking is intermittent.YSWT (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecco Pro was marketed as the world's first SuperPIM competing with other PIM programs^[3]. These included Polaris Packrat, Symantec ACT! (now Sage ACT!), Lotus Organizer, and Microsoft Schedule+ (predecessor to Microsoft Outlook).^{[citation needed]} Also in this product space at the time was GoldMine, Starfish Sidekick, and Jana Contact.^{[citation needed]}

Ecco Pro was marketed as the world's first SuperPIM^[4].

That's much better. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, current proposed revision for this section:

Information is entered in "items" and folders. Items are text lines or blocks containing up to 32 kilobytes of RTF text or a graphics image, or a Windows OLE object of any size, such as Word document, Excel document, or any file packaged in an OLE wrapper by Ecco's built in OLE packager. OLE objects which support preview, appear in the Ecco item as a scaleable preview of that object. Items can be arranged hierarchically as an outline, and items at all levels of the outlines can be linked to "folders" either manually or automatically using regular expressions, relational lookup, or logic defined by a script. There are six basic types of folders: Date, Numeric, Text, Pull-Down Selection, Check Box, and RTF (with the MagicView extension). Date folders support assignments enabling dates rules and a variety of alarms (including running external applications at a set time or interval) and notifications, and can be marked done. In addition to the RTF text contained in any item, each text folder the item links to can contain contain up to 32 kilobytes of text per folder assignment. RTF folders can contain up to 8 Megabytes of data per folder assignment, or be linked to external data sources.

Item text is entered directly as in a word processor, and folder data and links can be entered in several ways, including custom forms, columnar data entry, and selection of folders from a folder outline which can be edited and formatted like the item outlines. Both item text and folder values can be created or edited 'on-the-fly' based on progmatic rules or scripting. The progmatic assignments build on the similar functionality of Lotus Agenda and include regular expression matching and fixed (eg. Sept. 2, 2011) or relative (eg., next Monday) date recognition, as well as allowing for the scripting of rules in Lua, perl, python, JavaScript, and VB Script. So, for example, by combining rules and Ecco's built in date recognition, 'date' folder values can be set to automatically schedule events, alarms, or followups which then automatically appear in calendar views at the appropriate dates.

Information is displayed in live 'views'. There are three basic types of views: Calendar, Phonebook, and Folder based. Views can be combined so that multiple views can be arranged on a single 'notepad'. Items are displayed in Views based on the folders opened in that view and are displayed either with their outline context (with the outline hierarchy, if any, of the items shown), or de-contexted (showing just the items linked to the folder, and optionally that item's outline children). The phonebook views display decontexted items based on the alphabet, search box or field query. The calendar views display decontexted itmes in a calendar format based on the date assigments of any date folders linked to any items for the relevant period of the calendar displayed, either linearly, or in block dated format. Folder views show items in outline format under the relevant folders opened for that view, creating an outline of items (with our without their outline context) having a value linked to that folder.

The live views are the core to Ecco's user interface. Views can be filtered to include or exclude items or item trees with both regular expression and programatic filters. Views can also show any folder values as columns, and can be optionally sorted based on combinations of folder values. Outlines are created 'on-the-fly' within each view by the items which are linked to any folder, as filtered by any filter settings. The combination of items linked to any folder and active filters determines the outline content. The use of features such as calendar assignments, filtering, auto-assignment rules, and custom views enable a variety of uses such as project management, bibliographies, contact management, information and document management, and task management.

Ecco Pro supports collaborative editing and file sharing with user specifiable privilege levels via both on and off-line networking over a network, over a shared device such as a USB drive, or via email. Changes on networked systems are buffered so that synchronization is maintained across the network even when access is intermittent, and even if no two systems access the master network at the same time. Ecco Pro provides native PDA support (for Palm and Treo devices)^[5]. Third party additions provide support for calendar and phonebook syncing with pocket PCs and Outlook phonebooks and calendars. Ecco Pro has a native DDE API which exposes many elements of the database and outline structure to external manipulation and automation.

Missing from this is text on the automatic functionality, such as automatically reading date from text and assigning to calendar, etc. Also does not address ability to have same text in different outlines ordered based on different criteria. Also, the shared calendar, resource calendaring, and access restricted outline or phonebook sharing functionality may be worth mentioning as well. YSWT (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed the recent discussion in detail, but your post above looks fine since neutral language is used, and information is presented. However, a lot of detail like that is really more appropriate for a product's website. IBM Lotus Organizer is an example of a reasonably encyclopedic article, and more are at Category:Personal information managers. I would want to see the final article to really form an opinion since it all depends on how the whole page appears. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an article on software with 1% of the functionality will have 1% of the text about the software. More relevant is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Agenda which has 10% of the functionality of ecco. Notice the text is very similar to above, explaining the unique concepts of agenda. Notice also the text dedicated to date recognition in item text. THI (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest:

The progmatic assignments build on the similar functionality of Lotus Agenda and include regular expression matching and fixed (eg. Sept. 2, 2011) or relative (eg., next Monday) date recognition, as well as allowing for the scripting of rules in Lua, perl, python, JavaScript, and VB Script. So, for example, by combining rules and Ecco's built in date recognition, 'date' folder values can be set to automatically schedule events, alarms, or followups which then automatically appear in calendar views at the appropriate dates.

I have tried to stay out of this part of the discussion, as I thought we were getting somewhere. THI, You refer here to Lotus Agenda where the text is similar to the text proposed here. Note that you have been told that we are not writing software specifications or a software manual here, an argument 'notice the text is very similar to here' giving as an example an article which also does not comply with that earlier, policy and guideline based, statement, does not help.

Moreover, calling the functionality similar, would need an independent reference, otherwise it is plain original research. A statement 'Ecco Pro is unique for its automatic date recognition which can automatically schedule events, alarms and followups.(ref)' would be enough, there is no need to expand on that further. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetsra, "you have been told" is offensive. We are here to discuss, not dictate to others. This is not a deletion discussion. If you have any reference that usage in other articles should not be discussed in content discussions, please provide. Junic, who mirrors almost completely your positions from the beginning of both your involvement in this article, raised Lotus as an example. It was legitimate for him to raise the comparison, and it seems useful to examine how other articles deal with similar issues. If you have any reference in the wikipedia guidelines for your position, please present it.THI (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'You have been told' is a fine answer to editor who 'didn't hear that'...over and over and over again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, offensive personal attack and disrespect toward other editors is never appropriate.

If you know of a guideline suggesting consideration of other article content is improper (other than in a deletion discussion where notability is at issue and so other's notability has no relevance) please provide it. THI (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, that has been over and over and over linked, but you don't want to read it. So yes, 'you have been told' is VERY appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me put the argument in another way. Anyone can edit anything on this wiki. That something is written somewhere, or if an article exists somewhere (on wikipedia), is not a reason for notability, not a reason that it belongs there. We have policies and guidelines on this wiki, which help you decide what should be where, and what not. Wikipedia is not a manual, not a software specification, whatever, those are all things that are determined in our policies and guidelines. If somewhere there is a piece which reads as a software specification, then that article is in violation of our policies and guidelines. Simple. If one is then to say 'I want to write this as a software specification, because that article is also a software specification', then that person is, simply, knowingly writing in violation of our policies and guidelines. OK, the example (WP:WAX) we give is specific for deletion debates, but the same logic is for everything, and is used around on Wikipedia in other things (see e.g. WP:OTHERLINKS, which is a project page, but the logic is the same; see WP:INN, an essay conveying a similar message, see WP:ENN, another essay, also similar). If an article is written as a manual, it is in violation of WP:NOTMANUAL, if it is written as an internet directory, it is in violation of WP:NOTYELLOW.

I, again, am suggesting you (pl), to make contact with a Wikipedia:WikiProject with affinity for software, or more specific, and get them involved here. They might be able to help out, having fresh eyes, and an idea on what does and what does not belong in an (or: this) article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, a Long winded answer for 'no' you have no actual guideline to support your POV. deletion debates relate to notability. Another subject's notability is not relevant to any other's thus not proper in notability issue to compare. No analogy for guideline in content. Opposite. Encyclopedia should have some consistent structure. How other articles are written should be helpful for discussing any other. THI (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, we should have consistent structure, that is described in our policies and guidelines, and to get it consistent is to make sure all articles follow said policies and guidelines. I said already, "If one is then to say 'I want to write this as a software specification, because that article is also a software specification', then that person is, simply, knowingly writing in violation of our policies and guidelines.". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The archiving of this page is indeed not discussed, as noted by THI above. However, several editors have shown concerns that the size is a problem, and that old discussions should be archived. That was implemented by Kslotte, removed by YSWT (unexplained), Oneiros found the page to big, Cameron Scott reimplemented, YSWT (unexplained) set the limits to very long, which was reverted by TJRC (who expected it was an error) and now again set lower by THI. Lets discuss this.

• A) The maxarchive size of 1000K (1M) is too big (note, this is the size of the archive, not of this page!), such pages become difficult to load, due to their size. Also I would suggest 100K (that will result in more archives, but they are still all accessible anyway). B) 90d is 3 months. If discussions have not been edited in such a long time, then they are not active anymore, and since archiving != deletion, they can as well be in an archive where they can still be consulted. 900d is 2 1/2 years, that would hardly do much, and the discussions on this page tend to be long, very long. Can we settle for something shorter, I would suggest 90d, or maybe 180d. Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

90 days is fine. If nobody has touched a debate in that long it's dead. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For 'daily' wikians 90 or 180 days may seem like an eternity, but for a subject like this where the bulk of content has been contributed by editors who edit only occasionally, my own view is manual archiving is better approach. Suggestions for article made 4 years ago which haven't been implemented yet, are relevant still. My POV, 180 day is reasonable but for content issues and suggestions on talk page, is a fairly short period. Finally, see no reason for multiple quick loading historic archives. If anyone is interested in archive history, they can wait a second while larger single page archive loads. YSWT (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, 90 days is for regulars not much, but that is not the issue. If a discussion is not edited in 90 days, then that discussion is not 'live' anymore. Sure, it may contain not-implemented things, but then it is a matter of keeping that discussion alie by simply posting at the bottom (or, if it did get archived, retrieve it, and put a fresh post in it .. then it will again take 90 days). The 90 days is the last edit to the thread, not the first. And while most irregulars are here only every so many days, 90 or 180 days of absence is not something that happens often. But 900 or 9000 is .. absurd. If people really don't care that they don't visit this page in 2 years, then well .. then that point is not of much interest to them either. Moreover, Regarding the page size, waiting longer is not the problem (see Wikipedia:Upload_log_archive/May_2004_(1) for fun, large pages hit limits on some browsers (not to speak for editors who are not behind a high speed network) it is not a case of waiting, formerly they even hit limits in Wikipedia (but I think that pages of 1M don't give problems based on plain page-size anymore). But before the second 100k is full, then we are really quite a bit of time further. 1000k is IMHO too big (see also the example, that page takes time on my fast internet connection (the page is about 1.1M), can we settle for something between 100k and 250k .. before we hit 628 archives, we will be quite some time further, and then there are other ways to help in finding old discussions (implementing a simple search, which is also more convenient than to have to browse through a page of 1M). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could not help but noticing that here you say something completely different, YSWT. I have taken note of the remarks there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, so it's simply disruptive behaviour to ensure his POV is clearly shown on the talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues aside, I agree with Cameron that 90 days is plenty of time for sections to be up, but 180 is also fine with me. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at User_talk:YSWT#Talk:Ecco_Pro_archiving. --Kslotte (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, personal attack against editors. Once again from Beetstra and Cameron Scott. Previously assumed good faith with Scott. Pattern appearing. Nothing disruptive here except from small handful of wikipedians with no knowledge of topic to contribute, yet insist in forcing their POV while attacking the 'behaviour' of the editors expert on this article's subject. Join the consensus on 180 days. Cameron Scott, either provide support for your assault of another editor here, or apologize. I don't care how often you edit wikipedia articles. If you feel you can be rude to other editors, and use the talk page for personal assaults, you are wrong. THI (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you seeing that you would characterize as an attack? I honestly do not see anything that is overtly such. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents-- where does Cameron get off accusing me of "disruptive behavior". I think it is libelous. I also think Beetstra's implications about me 'saying something else elsewhere' are as well. Nuujin, Cameron's "disruptive behavior" comment is not directed at any article content, it is directed at me personally. Cameron's comment is also dishonest. My concern is that the talk page shows the POV of the majority of the contributors-- most of which are occasional editors whos comments spam months or years. Suggests made by other editors are lost in the auto-archive scheme. Noticably the last two sentences deal with the issue at hand, what should be retained, and my thoughts on why. By contrast Cameron's 'disruptive behavior' comment is not directed at any content issue, it is an attack of another editor.YSWT (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, YSWT, I could not tell that Cameron's comment of "disruptive behavior" is directed at you, it could be, but the comment confused me when Cameron made it, but I can be dense. One thing I would suggest that you reconsider your use of the word "libelous", as it might be confused with a legal threat, and I'm sure that's not your intent. More importantly, I think we should all strive to assume good faith and remain cool headed in discussions.

Regarding the archiving issue, I'm not sure what the problem is with occasional editors. Certainly archiving comments after 180 days of inactivity doesn't really favor any particular POV, since the archives are readily available, and can be referenced in a new section for discussion. So far it seems that most editors favor auto archiving, and there doesn't seem to be much objection to 90 or 180 days. Should we settle on 180 days for the time being and see how things go? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the change I reverted (referred to at the top) changed from 90 days to 9000 days, not 900 days, i.e., to a little bit under 25 years. A 25-year period is pretty absurd; if you're going to have that, you may as well not auto-archive at all. You can see why it was reasonable for me to assume that that was an edit made in error.

I would be happy with anything from 90 to 365 days. TJRC (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 9000 days seems extraordinary, and your assumption is quite understandable. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see I was not too clear there, indeed, TJRC, you reverted from 9000d to 90d. 90d is the common setting, 9000d is clearly absurd. I still think that 90d is really more than enough, but 180d is fine. Also, 100k is fine, 1000k is way too much.

Next point, but maybe Cameron Scott should clarify that if I am wrong: I think that Cameron Scott's comment was referring to the comment that YSWT made on their talkpage (here; linked above as a link to the thread on a permanent revid of their talkpage), in which they basically explains the same thing as the issue here, though in other words, and giving more and other reasons why they thinks this page should not be archived. THI, could you please clarify why my referring to that extended on-wiki explanation is a personal attack from my side? I would also want you to consider your statement 'except from small handful of wikipedians with no knowledge of topic to contribute', could you substantiate that, who are you referring to? YSWT, I am here with Nuujinn, you might want to take care with the word 'libelous', and for that matter, could you explain me why referring to a statement you actually made on-wiki (I said 'here you say something completely different'; and not, as you quoted it, 'saying something else elsewhere') is actually libelous, do I miss something, are you saying that you did not say that, or did I misinterpret the wording, and the two statements are actually the same? To me it seems that you give different reasons/explanations (to the same effect) in the two different places. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we all avoid the word libelous, since it has a rather precise legal meaning. Indeed, discussions of

any editor's conduct are really not helpful here--we should stick to content. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also any legal threats will result in an immediate block. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, exactly my point. Making up accusations of "disruptive behavior" and accusing "acutally libelous" is neither topical, helpful to the article, nice, or TMV, reality based. It is just inappropriate personal attack on another editor. Beetstra, you may think you are 'with' Nuujinn, but Nuujinn is asking, as am I that you and Cameron stop personally directed comments against other editors. Your accusing another editor of being libelous is precisely what Nuujinn was suggesting was not so helpful or welcome here. THI (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are confused, YSWT makes the comment about possible libel and Nuujinn is commenting on that. I am simply making the point that any hint of legal action or threat will result in an immediate block as per policy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confused ? Cameron, Beetstra wrote 'is actually libelous'. But you focus only on individual editor in particular. Interesting. I thought your comment was directed generally, Beetstra included. Apparently not. Interesting. THI (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, I am not accusing anything, and I have not accused anyone of libelous remarks, you, for one, are the one making unsubstantiated remarks "except from small handful of wikipedians with no knowledge of topic to contribute" (diff), where you assume that you actually know what software we are running on our computers knowledgeable about. For all you know, I may be a user of Ecco Pro for the last 10 years. Assume good faith - always. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)(adapted, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Rather than sorting through who said what when, I suggest we all agree to start fresh and confine our comments to the content of the article and how to make it better according to relevant guidelines and policies.

But back to the topic at hand, does anyone have any strong objection to setting the auto-archive to 180 days? Nuujinn (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection, though 90 days is already long enough. Also, 100k is more than big enough for archive size. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason 100k archive better for this talk page than 250k ? THI (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well WP:TPG says 50k, so 100k is allowing you double the normal consensus - why do you want 4 times that, what's so special about this page that it should step outside community consensus by so much? 90 days and 100k is plenty. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is approx. 150k at the moment, quite long. Creating archives which are 40% bigger than that makes them (obviously) even longer. 100k is better to handle, loads faster (we're not all behind a fast internet), and is less likely to lead to problems, there is simply no reason to have them bigger. After 4 years, we would not even reach the third archive, the next thread would just go into the next. Also, the one run of 90d archive still did not diminish this page to a reasonable size (archiving there suggest keeping the talk page smaller than 50k, and less than 10 threads, only the latter was reached, the size that was left was 128k, less than 100k archived), so 180d is still going to leave this a huge page. 90d & 100k is quite optimal, what is regularly used, and more than good enough. If a long thread still contains something important, it is fine to start a fresh thread with a bit of a summary, point back to the archive version, and move on. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archive is an archive. As not active size should reflect purpose-- archive. Larger archive keeps more discussion in context. Size of page not relevant for timeframe. If proposed sections of article are edited and discussed first on Talk Page, will be larger. That is not a bad thing to my view. There is a lot of 'attack' and negative energy invested into this talk page. Seeing the full history was helpful to me when my initial comments here were met with virulent antagonism and threats. Accuracy can be lost at cutting discussion view short. Full disclosure seems best approach where 'dispute' involves personal issues. Thought there was consensus on 180 days. But then again, if there were consensus then there would be nothing to 'debate' about, for those looking for 'debate', as opposed to collaboratively building an encyclopedia.THI (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threads will not be broken, so the discussions show their context. The threads will (soon) be on two archive pages, I don't see how that is losing the context of them, while it improves the handleability.

THI, you wanted this to be discussed, as there are opposing views. So clearly we did not start with a consensus, and we are not there yet, I think. Consensus would mean that we agree on archive size, which we don't do yet. With the time we are closer, I think. The remark 'looking for 'debate' , as opposed to collaboratively building an encyclopedia' is not aimed at the issue at hand, but at the people discussing it .. I think we agreed on not doing that anymore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that apparently we do not have consensus yet, but I feel we are close. I would suggest that at least for a while we not worry about the size of the page too much, and see how 180 days works--for what it's worth, I'm sensitive to page size since my editor slows on big pages, but this works for me pretty well right now. Also, I would point out that manual archiving is an option in addition to the auto archiving. For example, if we reach a decision on this particular issues, we could manually archive this section in say, 30 days, if no one has an objection at that time. Does that seem reasonable? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I am very sorry about the often lengthy and hostile and in some instances juvenile exchanges between Wikipedia editors and some contributors. If some of our “eccopro” Yahoo group members contributed in a non-conforming way it is my intent as the original “eccopro” Yahoo Group Owner (not ecco_pro group) to apologize for that.

Sadly, I found text on the “talk” page of one Wikipedia editor which would need clarifications: 

(I paid the compusol fee and downloaded from their site. While independent research is clearly

not appropriate for article text, it seems that it would be very relevant for determining an issue as

to the official download site. The site is distributing an installation package appears to be

created by compusol, and installs a copy of the old 1997 version of ecco pro. The installed

software files contains copyrights from Netmanage and other vendors and some portions of the

installation appear to be missing (some correspondence manage files, and a dll for database

management). The installed software is registered with the license distributed at the ecco_pro

download site, ie., it appears to have been taken from the official distribution site and

'repackaged'. The text on the compusol site states that Netmanage allows compusol to distribute

the software for non-networked home users, if no charge is made for the software. Those

limitations are not disclosed on the download package, and I could find no way to download

without paying. )

The member-only Compusol installation has no files missing. The location of some relevant system files is different depending on either the 32-bit or the 64-bit version of the installation. Additionally to comply with MotionApps Classic and the new Palm WebOS the registry setup was modified. Contrary to the above the original 16-bit Netmanage version 4.0.1.363 is today still available for free at http://www.compusol.org/ecco/401e32.zip.

CompuSol established in 1986 was an official distributor of EccoPro under Arabesque and later NetManage. There is no evidence that NetManage gave a release to the so called (new) official “ecco_pro” Yahoo user group established in 1/28/2007. At that time the original Yahoo user group "eccopro" and CompuSol had the official original EccoPro download of NetManage available via zip file and per FTP link to NetManage, see http://coolthingoftheday.blogspot.com and http://jkontherun.com. See also the license agreement discussion and email exchange between CompuSol and NetManage of April 2004 http://www.compusol.org/ecco/netmanage.html. Two years earlier on 08/27/2002, after several interuptions of their free FTP downloads, NetManage allowed CompuSol to distribute a zipped version of the last original installation dated 8/27/1997. This version is today still available for free at http://www.compusol.org/ecco/401e32.zip.

On 5/11/2005 on request of many of the original "eccopro" Yahoo user group members CompuSol created a manual EccoPro installation for users of Win XP SP2 called “EccoFilesSystem.zip” which was freely distributed to other support groups which used it as their free distribution copy still in use today at http://forums.eccomagic.com/.

For over a decade CompuSol is spearheading the effort to keep EccoPro alive - in direct discussions with NetManage and during the failed push in 2005 to release the source code (please see the EccoPro Wiki home at http://www.compusol.org to enter please click cancel at the password prompt, and see also http://www.mail-archive.com).

Most of the history referenced here is based on pages sampled by CompuSol in the years 2000 to 2005 http://www.compusol.org/ecco/arabesquefacts.html, the ’93 press release http://www.compusol.org/ecco/93pressrelease.html, the Arabesque Vision http://www.compusol.org/ecco/arabesquevision.html, Ecco History by Tom Hoots http://www.compusol.org/ecco/eccohistory.html, and why Ecco failed (EccoPro as a business case) by Chris Thompson http://www.compusol.org/ecco/eccocase.html. There are also several original PDF copies of PC Magazine articles created from archived copies of PC Magazine at CompuSol from 1993 and 1997 available at http://www.compusol.org/ecco/ecco93.pdf and http://www.compusol.org/ecco/pcmecco.pdf.

CompuSol hosts many free tools and help files released to CompuSol by the originators, like all Catalyst Tools and Call Commander Pro by John White. Many of these tools are also hosted free inside the file section of the original “eccopro” Yahoo tech support group http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/eccopro/join. In January of 2007 the fresh owner/moderator "YSWT" of a competing Yahoo Tech support group “ecco_pro” http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/join accused the original (older) group of being spam infested in an attempt to lure members to his new tech support group (please see the most recent messages or messages of that year). If this Yahoo support group is now referenced inside the Wikipedia page so should be the original Yahoo support group created in the ‘90s after the demise of the EccoPro forum at CompuServe.

If Wikipedia allows commercial links as in the case with "YSWT's" commercial site http://eccomv.com which hosts Ecco related trial software to be paid for after 90 days, so should be the EccoPro member supported site at CompuSol http://www.compusol.org/ecco which is not referenced or linked in recent revisions. CompuSol recognized last year the need to update the EccoPro installation process for new operating systems like 32-bit and 64-bit Vista and Windows 7 and developed with the help of commercially available licensed programs a Windows compliant MSI installer. Additionally, CompuSol simplified the PDA synchronization process in cooperation with MotionApps http://www.motionapps.com to make the installation compatible with webOS and the new Palm Pre by using MotionApps Classic V2 emulator(see hotsync.html). Also, all original installers for the EccoPro Version 2 and the Version 3 are still available at the CompuSol site. For legal reasons and as promised to NetManage in 2004 (see netmanage.html) CompuSol will not and cannot charge for any software downloads or multiple distributions thereafter (see also the readme.txt http://www.compusol.org/ecco/readme.txt included with every free download). CompuSol charges a low yearly $10.00 membership fee for software and phone support which does not cover any new software developing costs.

Additional External References to EccoPro and CompuSol (please note the time line of events):

http://www.sync2it.com/ Sync2it

http://friendfeed.com friendfeed.com

http://forums.eccomagic.com EccoMagic Forum

http://www.xmarks.com XMarks

http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.windows.eccopro gmane.org

http://www.wordyard.com Wordyard

http://portableapps.com/node/5137 Using ECCO on USB Drive

http://osdir.com osdir.com, ECCO under wine under Linux

http://www.compulegal.eu CompuLegal.eu

http://freemind.sourceforge.net freemind.sourceforge

http://forum.brighthand.com Brighthand

http://forum.darwincentral.org DarwinCentral

http://www.theconglomerate.org The conglomerate

http://www.allpm.com AllPM.com

http://www.donationcoder.com Donationcoder

http://www.hyperorg.com/ Hyperorg.com

http://www.outlinersoftware.com/ Outlinersoftware

http://www.guardian.co.uk The Guardian, London

http://projectmanagementnews.blogspot.com Project Management

http://www.fredshack.com/docs/pim.html Information Managers Fdohmann (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]