This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ecco Pro article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Computing: Software Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

This page was proposed for deletion by Boffob (talk · contribs) on 9 November 2008 with the comment: Promotional article riddled with external links but with no reliable source to establish notability.

This page was proposed for deletion by 137.122.49.102 (talk · contribs) on 21 September 2009 with the comment: Notability not established through reliable sources. Also has serious external links issues

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 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]

The archive time should be adjusted according to talk page length. WP:TPG says a limit of 50k. Currently we have 170k with an archive time of 90 days. This means with should reduce the archive time a bit let say 60 days to get a bit closer to the 50k limit. If the size is still long we reduce it even further. Once the talk isn't active we can increase it back to 90 days or even further to 120 days or 180 days. Tmbox or a sticky thread can be used to summary consensus or recurring topics. --Kslotte (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the time limit is cached pending consensus. Common sense missing here. Makes more sense just to open up sub pages. Eg., for discussion on archiving, for compusol issues, etc. That way active discussion can continue as relevant on relevant pages. THI (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if there are no objections, I suggest we move this thread to a subpage and there hold an informal RFC for the autoarchive interval--we ought to be able to come to consensus on this issue, if nothing else. Nuujinn (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I object. This is the talkpage, this is where the active discussions should be. If things get moved to subpages then it is easier to miss certain things, as threads do not seem to be discussed if one does not have the subpage watchlisted. And for some threads there is no clear distinction if it is regarding an compusol external link, or a reference (which may also be to compusol), or other issues. And then we might end up with 4 or 5 different subpages, while I would be surprised that even with archiving every 90d and a 100k archive size would end up with more than 2 sub-pages, where it is easier to follow the threads in time, then when they are spread over a handful of subpages.

Just keep the active threads here, and archive the threads which are silent. Simple backlinks in the header can link quickly to important, yet silent discussions. I do not see a reason why we should here, on the talkpage of an article on a debated, but certainly not controversial topic, need to implement sub pages for different threads, which is only implemented in extreme cases on the really controversial topics or the big noticeboards. This keeps it much more simple. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am concerned that there ends up being really controversial topics. Synopsis of quick example: Long ago I personally inserted link to compusol site. Other editors complained that external link to pay-to-access site is not appropriate. Had not realized it was actually pay-to-access, and eventually since everyone except me wanted it removed, it was removed. Then, there was a 'spam insertion' attack with compusol links replacing valid references. The compusol guy, apparently, used different accounts and IPs, "Charlie1945" is just one example, and engaged in some, apparently effective social engeenering. Suddenly, 'by coincidence' whenever compusol links were being inserted, there you (to whom compusol guy had turned to for 'help') and Johnic where, supporting them.

After much back and forth discussion and heated challenge, with input from other editors, consensus was developed.

Now again, compusol guy posts a social engineering 'here is my situation, please help me get my site listed in article' with another editor, and what-do-you-know, suddenly the compusol issue is hot again, with the question already resolved after much discussion and finally consensus, being raised again-- should we take out the link to the distribution site of the licensed and actively developed freeware software which is the subject of this article.

With simple sub page for the compusol issue, next time the compusol guy again asks another editor to see about adding a link to his site in the article, there will be a full page to point to, explaining all. YSWT (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that can all be linked in the archives, YSWT. Maybe not directly on this page, but Talk:Ecco Pro/Archive 1#October 2009 cleanup attempts can still be linked from here, and you can show that we discussed exactly why the article was cleaned there, and why certain info is absolutely inappropriate. That is not a reason to keep this very page uneditable, and to not archive threads. If they would be deleted, that would be an issue.

YSWT, regarding the specific case .. WP:EL is NOT the same as WP:RS/WP:V (there is a significant difference in what how to treat the links to documentation outside Wikipedia there, read it carefully, and then have a look at what was exactly linked in the specific versions of the document, and how that fits with WP:V), and I do not see a reason why the commercial Compusol should be treated anyway different than the external links that you want to include. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:55, 11 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]

• Just some factual corrections:

I am one of multiple moderators at the Ecco_Pro user group. The moderators, like myself, are recogonized experts, the user group is free and the position is unpaid. I recommend the eccomv extension, a few thousand law offices use it for document management, thousands of students use it, and it is a great exension-- that does not give me ownership of the software or the site. The vast majority of ecco users use that particular extension. Notably I have contributed software that is "mine", it is found as freeware both at the ecco_pro files section and the eccotools.com website. I have also contributed to the software of others, for this and other programs.

Because am one of the experts on ecco pro, was asked to help with the ecco_pro forum. Similarly, I did not start the eccowiki.com nor have I contributed by comparison very much, but was asked, because of my specialized knoweledge, to contribute, and have.

Too keep it short, just to fill in those with no backround, the old "eccopro" forum for many years was the legitimate ecco users forum. However, Fdohmann was able to take over the old user forum and it became a funnel to the compusol pay to join site. Netmanage then authorized the ecco_pro user group. A quick jump to the two forums and a look over post history and recent posts, or search for "compusol" and see results compared to total posts, should make most of this clear. One issue with the old list is that it is email harvesting bot infested, and has a little "choose hide my email option before posting to avoid the email harvesting bots' warning on active ecco related link lists.

With previous compusol link insertion edits to this article, Fdohmann, apparently in alias accounts (Charlie1945/etc), has explained the desire to insert compusol links in the article to keep the #1 google search results he has worked so hard to obtain. A review of the article history will show that I was not aware of the $10 fee requirement and am responsible for inserting the first compusol link, a few years back. At some point other editors complained that the site was a pay-to-download shakedown and not an appropriate link. When it was clear the link was not appropriate it was removed (this is before the last few batches of spam insertion of compusol links in the article).

Have no intention to deprive anyone of income, but ecco pro is freeware, actively developed, and available for free. 10,000 annual downloads at $10 a hit is $100,000.00. That can buy some lunches, but does not make the charge legit. "Catalyst Tools and Call Commander Pro" sound great only to the uninformed-- those tools were great in 16bit windows 3.11 but are now way out dated. (Neither of those tools was developed or is owned by compusol, but hey, assuming good faith will assume compusol has some right to charge for those software, and anyone running win 3.1 might find them handy).

Compusol did not and has not developed ecco or any software. There is a letter referenced above that compusol can distribute the non-network 1997 version of ecco for home use, if compusol does not charge for the download. As others have discussed previously on this page, if you go to the compusol website and try to download the software, you'll be required to sign up for a $10 annual fee for access. If you pay the fee, you'll get a 'pre installed' version of ecco, missing files, and including files that don't come with the original-- including a fixed version of a corrupted file ... which I personally developed and have never given compusol permission to distribute. (Although it is freeware, and available with attribution at the ecco_pro user group). The fully licensed (FREEWARE) for commercial and personal use, including networked use, and the actively developed ecco pro software is downloadable from the ecco_pro forum. It is licensed and free, no adverts, no catches. It is not GPL. It is licensed freeware. YSWT (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Finaly comment on the claim "For over a decade CompuSol is spearheading the effort to keep EccoPro alive". Compusol has had zero involvement with the active development of ecco. The active development to keep ecco alive has been a huge effort, involving great contributions by many incredible folks, including my own modest contributions. Compusol has had no part and provided no assistance in the development efforts. Compusol has had no part in the software's development, no ownership rights, no distribution rights, nothing. Moreover, the licensed version of the actively developed ecco pro software is 100% FREE. No catches. YSWT (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors at Wikipedia have no interest in the squabble between two different sites, and the fact that one of them charges $10 for something is not relevant to any decision made regarding the content of the article. Now that each side has made a statement, I suggest that any further comments should be limited to what can be verified in a reliable source. I assume people do not need me to repeat earlier explanations about the various policies that apply here, but those policies are a requirement for editing on Wikipedia. What is needed is a proposal for how to handle the external disagreement between two sites in this article. I still think that the best pragmatic solution would be for each site to set up a web page with a summary of their position, and one external link to each site added, using WP:IAR if necessary. Apart from that, information in the article must be reliably sourced. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one am interested. Accuracy of information is important. Knowing about the subject is important, perhaps. There is not a 'squable' between two sites. Ecco Pro software is an actual software program, actively developed, and you can download it for free at its official distribution site, the ecco_pro user group. This has been painstakenly established by credible references, previously in discussions on this page. Compusol does not develop software. Compusol is not connected to the development of ecco pro. There is no reliable reference that compusol distributes the actively developed software. They don't. I doubt there is any reliable reference that compusol is currently distributing the '97 version of the software because-- it is not a notable thing for them to do, (they do it 'unofficially') and the '97 version is a decade old and available unofficially for free elsewhere.

There are many sites relating to ecco, not just 'compusol'. There used to be links to all those sites. I am all for including those links, but other editors fairly have 'link farm' complaints. You can't favor compusol over other sites. compuson did not and does not devlop ecco pro. I don't think there is any dispute on that. Many sites have downloads of '97 version of ecco. No reason to single out compusol, except for those related to compusol, which makes money if users funneled to site from article.YSWT (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

am challenging this reference:

Versions are also distributed by Compusol.^[6]

Issues with this:

• Compusol is pay to access download site, not so appropriate/helpful in this context.

• The text becomes confusing, even misleading. Compusol provides unofficial downloads of the 1997 version of the software NOT the modern, actively developed ecco pro software. Since compusol charges for download access, they try perhaps to confuse this point.

• The reference does not support/establish the asserted fact. The guardian blog (deferring validity of the blog reference) doesn't state that versions are distributed, it just generally mentions ecco pro, and provides a general reference to the compusol site. Note the difference between 'you can get ecco pro for free, see more info at compusol site' and 'you can get ecco pro for free AT compusol site'. One is a reference that you can get ecco at compusol, the other is a reference to find more information about distribution which can be found via the compusol site. There is no doubt that compusol has made itself the #1 google search return for ecco pro. Understandable how it will show up as general web reference cite. But if a journalist actually was writing about where ecco pro was distributed TODAY, expect very different article text. If relevant to article that compusol distributed software in 2006, then article can say so, if there is such a valid reference to support.

• Free (and similarly unlicensed) downloads of the '97 version are available on number of sites, including several blogs and forums. Those are mentioned also in other blogs/articles. Will article become of list of all places unofficial '97 version of ecco can be downloaded ? (I don't think this is wikipedia intention, but am personally all for it, would be helpful to many readers. But, key is most all those sites are free, and they sure should be listed if listing the pay to download compusol site.). Again, not that I don't want compusol to earn money, but if this article is going to list all the sites where unofficial '97 version of ecco can be downloaded, why exlcude the free sites and only include the pay-to-download site ?

• Had thought we've been all through this before in painstaking detail.

• Have no problem with article explaining that '97 version of ecco pro can be downloaded for $10 at compusol site. If helpful for reader I support this text in appropriate article location. But that seems like original research, etc. No one has written, to my knowledge about this in any reliable media because it is not notable. The official, licensed '97 version of the software is avaialble for free at the ecco_pro users group, along with the modern actively developed version of the software. 'Unofficial' version of '97 ecco is found on at least 5 other sites besides compusol. Notably, there is no credible/reliable source that current versions of this software can be downloaded or are distributed by compusol-- because they can't and aren't. YSWT (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you want to go down this road? Are you are aware of how small this article would be if strict application of WP:V and other policies were applied? Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here we go again ? quick synopsis: Johnuniq, notice your 'contributions' to this article started at the same time as Beetstra's, and over a period of many months occur in conjunction with Beetstra's. Which coincide with the re-insertion attempts for compusol links. Then all the links for free distribution and active development were removed. Beetstra and you demanded strict proof that ecco_pro was the distribution site of the actively developed software. Eventually, since the sources including those offered on 'your side' of the discussion established the fact, it was acknowledged that the ecco_pro site was established by reliable references as the software's development and distribution site.

But, as it does every few months apparently, the 'compusol' debate is renewed. As I see it, it is helpful to include as much helpful material in an article as possible. So, my general suggestion would be to include all the relevant sites, the eccotools listing of 100? current ecco add-ons and extensions, the 'ecco empowers us' fix for file link double clicking, the compusol site for palm syncing, the eccowiki, the srules page with sample rules and expressions, the dde apis, etc.

Johnuniq, et.al., apparently when it served their POV, argued that this article should not be a link farm, and links should only be included if relevant to encyclopedia article and supported by reliable references. That argument is legitimate to some extent. The compusol site is listed on the ecco_pro user group's external links page. Beetstra made argument against other link/reference on that ground.

In sort, if Johnuniq and Beetstra's argument to negate inclusion of free ecco software extensions and download sites is applied to the pay-to-access compusol site, the site clearly should not be included. References and links to a pay-to-access site that is not a developer of the software not seem helpful. The palm sync page of the compusol site does seem helpful and interesting to readers of this article. I think it benefits the article to say:

• here is a page explaining how to use ecco's apis,
• here is a page explaining how to use the sync with palm feature,
• here is a page explaining how to fix hot file links,
• here is a page with specifications for the auto-assignment rules and scripting
• here is a database with thousands of ecco questions answered.
• here is a page with a hundred freeware and shareware extensions listed and explained
• here is a page with forms and example folder rules

But to single out compusol for preferred treatment, or to funnel users to look to compusol for a pay to download bootleg of the software (not owned or developed by compusol) not helpful. If the above is many links, helpful to discuss most helpful to article, and include.

Also note those pushing compusol site oppose external link to the public domain api specs,etc. THI (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the version history feature set material missing. Because it shows all the features missing from the decade old bootleg distributed for a fee on compusol, and that current version was released as freeware ? THI (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really have any choice but to go down that road, at least a some distance? The article is a mess right now, and largely unsourced. My personal opinion is we'd be better off with a short well sourced stub than a larger article full of OR.

YSWT, blogs associated with newspapers and magazines may be used reliable sources as there is editorial oversight, see the relevant policy. Whether a site charges or not is irrelevant. What a journalist would write today is irrelevant. What we can say is what is found in verifiable and reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, really? So if article wrote in 1967 that the GDP of us was 10 Billion, we could write in article "the GDP of US is 10 billion" just like was written in the 67 article ? or, do we write "in 67 the US GDP was 10 billion" ? Ie. if source makes statement about a current fact, we have to cite the fact as current for the time the article was written. You do agree, right ? THI (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, yes, really, although perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What we write is "in 1967, the US GDP was reported to be 10 billion." My point is what a journalist would write today is irrelevant--if there's no reliable source for how things are today, we don't include the material. We use what we have in verifiable reliable sources, not what we wish were in such, nor what we know from personal experience. And yes, we agree, we cite the fact as current for the time the article was written. Nuujinn (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is 2009 Wordard article http://www.wordyard.com/2009/03/24/ecco-in-the-cloud-with-amazon/ explicitly citing location for download. The article is more current, and reference is explicit. The distribution location: http://forums.eccomagic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1193820851 (FREE). Do not think is necessary to include multiple distribution sites, but, if that is the desire, the more recent citation of specific reference to a distribution website, to a free download of a free software package makes more sense then half decade old general reference to website that 'distrbutes' the free software, for a fee... YSWT (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, what policy or guideline can you cite that makes whether the software is free or not relevant to these discussions? The article does contain a link to the forum download site, but I note the author makes no mention of that. I'm not sure how we could use it. To be clear, the "desire" is not to include sites, but rather to include material that is available in reliable sources. I'm not sure about this source, since Wordyard appears to be a personal blog, but Rosenburg is a good writer. The main thing is tho I'm not sure how we can reference the download in the article without violating OR. I certainly think we could add a line like:

• In 2009, Scott Rosenburg provided an explanation of how to download and install ECCO Pro software on virtual servers provided by Amazon, enabling access via remote desktop protocol.

What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The orginal 'compusol' reference was also from a blog. By contrast, the wordyard web publication is by journalist, in this industry, who is well known and recognized, and wordyard has been recognized in other articles, and here, as reliable reference. Similarly, the original referenced article simply had a 'see compusol' with no text in the 2006 article that download was available at compusol site. NOW, I am not advocating including the reference to eccomagic forum download unless we're going to list all the download sites for the software. Am simply pointing out that there are better references than the compusol 'reference' if were interested in inserting that type of article text. A 'where can I get this' paragraph is probably a good and healthy thing for the article. If other's agree, wow, let's do that and add all the appropriately referenced distribution sites. But wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Compusol's social engeenering requests to 'please mention/promote my for profit website' is not helpful for neutral, non-promotional article. YSWT (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, there is a clear distinction between commercial (pay for) and non-commercial (free) material addressed in articles. For example, " External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. " applies to commerical (not non-commercial) organizations. Similarly, Policy says "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors". Clearly the issue of whether a site is distributing its own software, or charging money to distribute bootleg copies of software developed by someone else is relevant to article topic/content discussion. YSWT (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the functionality section the text is interesting. Personally am for inclusion of as much helpful information to reader as possible, although seems over technical as worded. maybe:

"In 2009, Scott Rosenburg provided an explanation of how to download and install ECCO Pro software on virtual servers". (Which seems to point those looking for that information to helpful source.) Your thoughts ? YSWT (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the blog with the compusol reference is from a blog by a journalist published in a newpaper online and is clearly a reliable source vis a vis policy. Regarding Wordyard, where has it's reliability been discussed? Has it been blessed by discussion on the reliable source noticeboard?

Detailed discussions on this talk page previously. YSWT (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding compusol, are you suggesting that they are engaged in illegal activity? If so, can you source that claim in a reliable source?

Reliable source issue does not apply to warez sites or porn sites, etc. there will not be a news article on most illegal warez sites, especially small time ones-- they are not news worthy. Same for porn sites. If you link to a site that has porn, you can see that from the link, you do not need a 'reliable source' in media to tell you that. If you're interested in the underlying background, am happy to explain. Ecco was for several years abandoned. Utilities which were written for ecco (originally a windows 3.11 product) didn't work in win 32 systems and were not developed as ecco was not being actively developed. Thus, there was a body of software that no one was actively policing for piracy. So a mini scam market developed with some making money by selling ecco 'licenses' where were actually a 'secret way to use ecco under a license without actually buying it', and some set up pay-to-access distribution sites without whatever software they felt comfortable reselling without getting into trouble. Since netmanage released a licensed version of the software as freeware that is at the users group, and since active development started, the only remaining 'pay to download other's ecco related software' is the compusol site. Notably, compusol was expressly directed by Netmanage (the original developer of ecco) NOT TO CHARGE FOR DOWNLOADS. You'll notice that the compusol guy will admit this, and explain that he doesn't charge for the program, only for 'membership' which is necessary to download the program.

At any rate, I happen to be an expert heiracrchal data structures and organization theory, so Ecco is a hobby for me. I have written a few freeware extensions and other freeware fixes and tools. Some of the results of my work is included, without permission and without attribution in the compusol 'distribution'. In the past I have had to take legal action against a 'co-moderator' of the compusol guy to stop distribution of my own copyrighted material-- he took my work, removed attribution and copyright info, and tried to pass it off as something else. Since it was freeware it seems insane to me, but alas, there appears to be a profit motive in back of the story. At any rate,

I beleive there is consensus that compusol did not develop ecco pro, and owns no copyright nor ownership right in the program. The compusol guy admits this himself, so the fact is not disputed here. I think there is also consensus that charging for ecco pro violates the ecco pro license and copyright, the compusol guy has admitted that here previously, and believe there is consensus on that. Thus these facts are not challenged. The fact the site charges for the software is clear-- go to the site and try to download it. YSWT (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, in regard to "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article", that would be relevant if there were an external link to compusol's web site. The link I added was not to compusol, but rather to a blog article published in a newspaper that contained a link to compusol, which is a much different matter. External links policy explicitly does not cover inline references and citations to 3rd party source. I also note that external link policy says that if you have a conflict of interest, you should defer to other editors in regard to external links (WP:EL#ADV). Policy also suggests not linking to discussion groups such as Yahoo fora (WP:ELNO). So I suggest we remove the links to the ecco forums, and I'm willing to let the mention of the compsol download stay out of the article--I'm perfectly content to simply cover the software as represented in reliable sources, and stay completely away from all of the externals sites, fora, discussion groups, etc. Shall we do that instead? Nuujinn (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Published in a newspaper, or published in a user-input blog adjuct to the paper, and included on the paper's website as a reader-invovlement service ? The key question: was this written by a journalist in his field and subject to normal editorial and fact checking of a newspaper ?

Again, we've been through this in the past and reached consensus on it. The ecco_pro forum is the official distribution site for the software. It is also the site of active developement of the software subject of this article. I understand you were not inserting an external link. The issue is relevance of free vs. commercial . Is the issue relevant to wikipedia, and I believe the answer is yes. Essentially you want to add text to the article that in 2006 a newspaper blog mentioned compusol to see for downloading the software. Ok. Why is that helpful to the article ? Notably the "versions" is confusing, implying that the current, actively developed software was available at compusol. This is something that is 100% not true, not supported by the references which clearly state the active development and actively developed versions are avialable at the ecco_pro group. For policy on blogs, I suggest you review WP:NEWSBLOG.

Here is a software program that is actively developed and officially distributed at a user group. The user group should be treated the same as any other software developer and distribution site. Since it is the official distribution website as established by 3rd party reliable resources. See prior, extensive discussion. 08:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This article can be compared to an article on some great, free, nature park with amazing views. If the article ends up sending readers to another park, because the owner charges for entry, where there are not such great views, the article does a great dis-service to the reader. One key part of Ecco Pro is its calendar and scheduling. Same for its folder assignment rules. Sending readers to 'download' a 14 year old version of the program -- that just for example, doesn't auto schedule because it has a bug not recognizing dates beyond the year 2000, is not helpful. Especially for students and those who really would benefit from the program which is freeware.

Reliable sourcing for the underlying facts of the software's active development and distribution were at one point missing from the article. After much discussion and input consenus was reached on reference sourcing.

Fact checking is important. The article should refence the current version of the software in reference to download locations. If there is a reason to include text as to where the product could be downloaded half a decade ago, then we can put that in the history section. It is certainly a part of the history of the software.YSWT (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I point here to the fact, that all of these references are mere blogs. There is no form of peer review on such entries, there is no form of editorial oversight, blogs give personal insights of their writers. They can say something, and if the writer is a recognised specialist in the field, it certainly means something, but it is not the type of reference where we should make extreme statements from. The second use of Woodyard now mentions the LUA programming language, where Scott Rosenberg says "His furious pace of development has involved, if I understand correctly, the incorporation of the Lua scripting language into the extension." .. I quote 'if I understand correctly' .. so we are taking that for a fact now, and therefore it is incorporated into this text. Please be careful with this reference. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Beetstra on this as a general matter. Note that the Lua scripting is not controversial, however, the point is still well taken. The eccowiki is the official documentation site for the software. That seems to me a much better source for the technical aspects of the program. Notably, reference to official site of software for spec reference is appropriate. Although it is in 'wiki' format, it is not a globally open public wiki. There is something really cool going on here, and I wish the article would reflect it more-- here is a group of folks working together to develop free software. So, the specs/techinal documents are a wiki, the distribution site is the user group. It is something cool. Ecco failed as a commercial product but then exploded as a freeware program. YSWT (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, please stop inserting your comments within other people's posts, it makes it impossible to keep track of who said what and when they said it. Follow standard procedure and post below the other person's comments, and try to indent properly and consistently.

In terms of Eccowiki being the official documentation site for the software, please produce a reliable source demonstrating that. If that datum is in a prior discussion, please produce a diff of same. "Cool" and "free" are not criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, and we have to follow policy. Nothing you've claimed about compusol's distribution of Ecco pro is illegal--charging a small fee for site access is perfectly legal, just as charging for media containing FOSS, shareware, or freeware is legal, or Redhat charging for their linux installation and service, or forums that charge a membership fee. Comparison of the compusol website to porn and warez is not supportable, and unless you can produce a reliable source asserting that what compusol is doing is illegal, I suggest you drop that line of argument. The fact that you feel your copyrights were violated by them is not relevant--if anything, it suggests you should not be participating in discussions regarding compusol because of COI issues. Claims for inclusion must be backed by coverage in reliable sources.

I am also confused about your characterization of the software that compusol distributes being the 1997 version. If I understand correctly, the source code is not freely available for ecco pro and has not been released to the public. It is not the case that the ecco forum also distributes an early version, but with extensions?

Ok, look, you're not familiar with the topic. For purposes of article, there is no media article saying the source code was released. If you're asking me as a factual matter, if it has been mis-reported, no, the source code is not "freely available for ecco pro and has not been released to the public". However, that does not apply to devlopers. The code is not open source, nor public domain.

Also freeware does not mean GPL. Both the old '97 and the new 2010 versions are free but are not public domain and are not licensed for redistribution.

The ecco users group distributes both a freeware licenced version of the 1997 version, and a 2010 version. The software is actively developed. The 1997 version has the limitations you'd expect from a 14 year old program. Auto date scheduling doesn't work beyond Dec 31, 1999 (a common Y2k bug), there is no way to paste RTF text, no mouse wheel support (there were no mouse wheels in '97), no support for active scripting (it didn't exist in '97), Regex searching, wordwrap of text, toolbar icon, cut&paste to/from Excel, etc.. Also the feature set was continued, eg., folder math, auto-assignment rules, date recognition, context control, drag & drop movement of items/sub items, email from phonebook, item dependencies, etc. etc.

When Netmanage agreed to allow continued development, (expressly requiring distribution would be pursuant to the Netmanage license terms and 100% free), there was a with a license from one of the DB tools used which in essense would have required renewed royalties to recompile the DB manager. A workaround was arranged where the DB component was not recompiled, but instead update patches are applied to the compiled object code. Thus, a user must first download the freeware version of the program (available at the user group) to obtain a valid license, and then apply the product updates. The original updates were applied to the object code file on disk. A genius programmer involved with the development then came up with a better idea, applying updates dynamically so that all a user needed was the latest update file, which is the current SOA. The 'extension' is not an add-on tool (there are many, see eccotools.com for pretty full listing), it actually is an update to the program applied dynamically.

Of historic interest, before development of the software was renewed at the user group, Netmanage distributed the freeware version at its website. (for free, of course). Once active development was renewed and the software was distributed via the user's group (as freeware), Netnmange stopped distributing the software at their website. One of the terms of the freeware license is that Netmanage does not in any way provide support for the program. Finally, when MicroFocus took over Netmanage, the entire EccoPro online reference at the Netmanage website was purged.

Compusol installed the free software on their machine, and then 'packaged' the installed software in a 64bit win7 installer-- selling is as 'new 64bit version of ecco'. Obviously, it is not, it is parts of the '97 version repackaged by compusol. Some of those files were corrupted (in the '97 version). As the result of my own personal work, the corruption was located and fixed. Some fixed files are included in the compusol release, without attribution (or persmission, actually). Compusol is as far as I can tell a one guy operation. He is clearly not familiar with the technical aspects of ecco and does not apparently understand the install. When ecco installs it searches your system, and saves to disk only those files which are found to be relevant. For some install points, alternative files will be installed, (ie., on some systems file A on others file A version B, etc.). Thus, repackaging an install on one machine does not mean it will work on another. Frequently in the eccomagic forums, there are requests for help "Help! I purchased the new 64bit version of ecco and now ecco won't print" and such. Since there is no new 64 bit version, -- the active development is in 32bits because we are stuck with the DB structure, the claim is bogus. Since netmanage allowed the continued development only as freeware, if someone 'purchased' ecco, they have been scammed. Sure hope this is helpful.

All reference to the active development the program (and certainly all reliable references to ecco in past few years) clearly attribute distribution and development to the user group. If you want to include a historic reference that in '06 compusol was suggested on a blog as a place to download ecco, I think the fact is true-- compusol has heavly promoted itself. It certainly only helps the article to include related historic developments in their proper context. However, obviously, compusol should not get special treatment. Let's list all the places referenced for software distribution, and when. I think it actually adds helpful information to the article. However, to the extent editing of the article hides the fact the program is freeware and actively developed, or obscures the official distribution site of the actively developed software which is the subject of this article, obviously I, and I believe other editors have a problem with that.

Final note, the compusol guy 'plea' is that I personally have some issue with compusol. This is clearly not accurate, as shown by the article history-- I personally inserted a link to compusol in the article years ago, argued that it should be included, and only after consensus to remove wsa it removed. I think having a healthy amount of external links helps the article. The consenus was that is creating a 'link farm' and not appropriate. There is merit to that view, even if I don't agree. But, while compusol has a profit motive and this can actively promote its site, it should not get the benefit of promotion in a wiki article-- it should be treated just the same as every other similar site. There are at least three other sites referenced in reasonable references that 'distribute' the '97 version of ecco, including 2 others in an updated 'installer' package. YSWT (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of that being said, Dirk has a point, and as I have said, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion of following policy very strictly and removing all references sourced in and external links pointing to blogs, discussion groups, wikis, and fora. Do you agree that is the appropriate path to take? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is clearly not a helpful nor appropriate path to take. The references and sources all comply with wikipolicies and we've had heated discussions on all of them and what is left is the result of what has been accepted by consensus. Artilce sources must be proper for every article, including this one. If there is a specific issue with anything, please review the prior history, and let's discuss. Wikiguidlines exist for a reason. If properly and intelligently/thoughtfully applied, they should result in a good article. Most all of the editors would agree with that, I hope. YSWT (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, if this is what you were requesting, diff which, I think deals with last round of discussion to consensus on that (reference for active development/distribution) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEcco_Pro&action=historysubmit&diff=373583350&oldid=367039476. and ":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)" (also note, any misplaced response not intentionally before end of anyone's comments, etc. perhaps you have some wiki edit tool/s to recommend ?? YSWT (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a moderate rewrite of the history section, trimming material that was not supported by the references provided, I think it's all well sourced now, at least for the refs I could check. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected some facts, correlated directly to reference. EG., the reference explains "It’s all made possible by the essential solidity of the original program and the API hooks its creators provided — so that, even though the original Ecco code can’t be changed, it can still be built upon" the API hooks allow future mods, not the LUA scripting. (The LUA scripting is part of active scripting support for auto text and rules assignements, just FYI). YSWT (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out this: In March 1997 NetManage introduced support for Microsoft Exchange 5.0 in Ecco Pro version 4.^[7] If it has some relevance to the article that anyone can explain, feel free. Does not seem that has any historic significance.THI (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm easy either way on that issue. I just removed some puffery, added some references from PC Magazine's archives, correcting some information. There's no evidence in the archives for Seymour's article choosing Ecco as Best of Anything for 1993, but the archive does not reproduce the magazine in toto, just the articles (which in this case is a blurb). We should be very careful to follow sources closely and maintain a neutral point of view--I am disturbed by the degree of inaccuracy and POV that crept into this article--as an example I'd point to the codeweaver's reference, which I toned down considerably. It's not a ranking of software overall, but rather a user-vote ranking on compatibility with CrossOver, a virtual machine package supporting windows applications on linux and macintosh computers. Nuujinn (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you're injected your editorial POV, aren't you ? You've selectively edited the actual facts provided by the reference. The following is using text directly out of the referenced article:

Even without the code being open-sourced, there’s significant new work on the program. A programmer "slangmgh" developed an extension to Ecco Pro at the ecco_pro users group on Yahoo. Ecco Pro still has a devoted community of users and suddenly started evolving again in the hands of an energetic programmer and members of the Ecco user's support group who stepped forward to provide documentation. The new development includes significant fixes and upgrades to the program including incorporation of the [Lua] scripting language. ^[8]

You'd like the following better ?:

Even without the code being open-sourced, there’s significant new work on the program. A programmer "slangmgh" developed an extension to Ecco Pro at the ecco_pro users group on Yahoo. Ecco Pro has a community of users and started evolving again in the hands of a programmer and members of the Ecco user's support group who stepped forward to provide documentation. The new development includes significant fixes and upgrades to the program including incorporation of the Lua scripting language. ^[8] YSWT (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, I ask that you take care in your characterization of my actions, and that you focus on content, not the contributor. The text I provided is:

• Even though the source code for ECCO Pro is not open source, development of the software continues. A programmer "slangmgh" developed an extension to Ecco Pro posted to ecco_pro users group on Yahoo. The new development includes fixes and upgrades to the program such as incorporation of the [Lua] scripting language.

My point was not about you personally, but that in choosing what parts of the article to include we are making editorial decisions. You selected what facts you wanted to include and what facts not. Am not impugning any bad intent, but pointing out the reality of the way the article text was used. For example, you choose to leave out that ecco pro has a community of users, or that the user's group has provided documentation, or that the new development includes signficant fixes. You selectively edited out those facts and picked other ones. YSWT (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty neutral and encyclopedic, what do you object to specifically? What would you like to add? We can't use your proposal above since it would be a copyright violation. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the program code is not open-sourced, there has been significant new work on the program. A programmer "slangmgh" developed an extension to Ecco Pro at the ecco_pro users group on Yahoo. Ecco Pro has a community of users and development of the program started again in the hands of a programmer and members of the Ecco user's support group who stepped forward to provide documentation. The new development includes significant fixes and upgrades to the program including incorporation of the Lua scripting language. ^[8]

Tracks the facts and not copyright violation. Facts (not wording) included from orginal source: Ecco Pro has a community of users; development of the programs started again; members of the user's group contribute documentation; new development includes dignficant fixes and upgrades. YSWT (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, I have incorporated some editorial selection which seemed important to your POV, such as removing the reported fact that Ecco Pro still has a devoted community of users. To my POV, would include that in the article text. Source stated that fact, and relevant to article. My feeling is your POV opposes that information being included, and so I didn't include in my suggested rev. If you don't oppose that fact being included, would definitely include as well. (and just so am clear, the combined interplay of everyone's genuine POV is what makes wikipedia great. You see things I don't and visa versa. by respecting and combining the best from everyone's POVs, we get something better than anyone could do alone.) YSWT (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"by respecting and combining the best from everyone's POVs" - this is *not* what we do here but you can't hear that and you carry on failing to hear that. I think, as suggested above, we strip this back to the most reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I know that is not what you do with the talk page, but I wish you would. Respecting other's POVs, listening, and reaching consensus is what this wiki article *should* be all about. (2) Certainly agree with you on keeping article based on most reliable sources where there is a conflict in facts presented by differend resources, or for the article to discuss the different views and site appropriately. YSWT (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching consensus based upon reliable sources is what we do, but we don't have to and indeed are *required* not to give any additional weight to single purpose POV-pushers who want an article to reflect their own view of a subject, why after all this time you are unable to grasp this is beyond me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, we are writing articles here which comply with our policies and guidelines, and we are trying to get to a version which has a neutral point of view. We do not incorporate everyones POV .. e.g. your POV is to include as many as possible external links to Ecco Pro sites which are useful for Ecco Pro. But that so much violates policies and guidelines here (WP:NOT/WP:MOS/WP:EL .. etc.) that that is not what is according to our policies and guidelines. Same below in the amount of detail. We are not writing a product manual or product specification here, especially not when there is not a single independent, reliable, source stating the same. Indeed, collaboration makes this Wikipedia great, but that still has to be done while following policies and guidelines. As I said below, you are now here for, what, 3 years .. and since that time you have been in discussions where editors are commenting to you that you need independent, reliable sources to make information reliable. When I arrived at Ecco Pro for the first time .. the article was badly sourced, riddled with external links .. it was not close to anything that would comply with our policies and guidelines. I cut massive parts, removed unsourced info, but just a couple of days ago you ask again to re-incorporate one of those parts which fails that. Indeed, YSWT, why, why are you unable to see what we are trying to say to you? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, more personally directed attack. Again attempts to label and discredit another editor. Again, in place of discussion and concensus and then making contested edits, unilateral edits inserting editors' POVs. Again, every editor making those edits were subject of compusol guy's social engineering efforts. Resulting text is odd.

Why "is said to include fixes and upgrades to the program" ? Every fact in article is based on something that is said elsewhere. No reference contests the fixes and upgrades, so why "is said to" ?

Why 'an extension'. The referenced article calls it an 'extension' in quotes.

Why "Ecco Pro is ranked within the top 500 applications, based upon 4 votes, by CodeWeavers on their CrossOver compatibility list, where Ecco Pro receives a "unsupported bronze medal", indicating CodeWeavers recommends CrossOver users run Ecco on the CrossOver platform with caution—Save early/save ofte" Relevant that ecco appears on compatibilty list and tpe of compatability, but minutue of "based upon 4 votes" is extremely not relevant to this article, nor is the 500 rating. Again, odd selection of facts.

Similar odd selection of facts from Wordyard article. Omission of community contribution of documentation, for example. Omission of dedicated user community. These are the reported facts, but omitted. Why ? Subject of article is ecco's re-brith. User community contributing documentation highly relevant, and reported in the source. Omitted here, why ? YSWT (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain me exactly what you see here as a personal attack, and what does the 'compusol guy' have to do with this? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"single purpose POV-pusher" is an attempt to discredit, "you are unable to grasp this" is personal attack, similarly, "you are now here for, what, 3 years .. and since that time you have been in discussions where editors are commenting to you that you need independent, reliable sources to make information reliable" is also personal, paints a very false impression. Notably none of the issues I raised about article text above have been addressed, only re-focus on the personal issues. YSWT (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questin directly: The 'compusol guy' makes a social engineering appeal to an editor. The appeal includes plea that there is a website war (or something to that effect) and the "new kid on the block" is unfairly trying to subvert his website, and at the editors' judgment to please insert a promote his website in the article (or some such gist). The editor surely wants to be fair, is not familiar with the background, and *presto* a reference to compusol appears in the article. Objection to that results in 'push back', 'oh, you don't like that, we'll maybe we should just take out all the references/links (or what not) in this article". Then instead of discussing changes to article which are disputed to reach concensus and then modify article, suddenly we are back to changes made without consensus. Again, I am not against compusol generally. For example, there is a helpful how to sync with palm page at the compusol site. My POV is helpful to include, along with other how to, eg., how to fix file hotlinks website, and am not opposed to inclusion. Notably, prior to compusol's 'reaching out' to yet another editor for 'assistance', we were discussing things here, reaching concensus, and then editing the article accordingly. It was nice. I had stayed away because it had stopped being nice. Well, once again, its not so nice here-- not because of content issues, but because of respect and courtesy issues. YSWT (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, YSWT. But we are trying to say that we have our inclusion policies and guidelines, and those should be followed. There are quite some Wikipedia regulars here, who say that the sources that are available are not good enough for the information that is in the article, let alone what was in the article. You are right, you are a subject specialist here, and we are asking you to help us with better references. As it is now, some information is just not properly referenced. And if information is not properly referenced, then it fails our inclusion guidelines, and it can go without discussion (and many here are disputing the current version before we consider removal). Then a discussion can start what can be included, or maybe parts can be rewritten for that, but as I said below, Wikipedia is not exactly reliable, and leaving unreliably sourced information does not help that cause. And that is following our policies and guidelines, see e.g. WP:EL, which states "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.", we don't leave it there while it may not be suitable, we discuss inclusion first. And to make it even worse, consensus can change, so if something had consensus, but it is disputed later on, then we have to get a new consensus.

Regarding the compusol references of earlier. Some of those were to actual PC Magazine articles (some hosted on the server). At that point, we did not have those references, and you can see that all have been replaced by the actual ones. Then there was the compusol article itself, which I questioned as a reliable source (it is certainly not good enough!), but which, I think, is still higher a source than the forums. All the other sources that were there were links to mainpages of forums, wikis, etc. They do not provide a suitable source, they are a primary source, and primary sources should be used with a lot of care. Same goes for forum and blogposts, they are to be used with care, as most do not have editorial overview or an other review process. I am sorry, that there is not more available, so there is not a lot to go on.

We are all trying to make policy/guideline based arguments why something is not supposed to be there. Too much detail, not properly referenced, not notable enough to be mentioned. It does not mean, at all, that it is not all true, but the problem is that it needs to be verifiable. We are asking you to come with that information, but we seem to get into circular arguments, where we say that something is not suitable for inclusion following our policies and guidelines, then it is said that other articles have the same, we say they don't follow policy and guideline, and we get back to 'which guideline does it not follow'. WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:MOS, &c. have been named over and over, and certian information simply fails that. Yes, also in other articles, or there it is properly, independently, referenced. I am sorry if I give in to my frustration there, but we really seem to be saying the same over and over. I could e.g. go for the external link to the user group that is in the article. There are many Ecco Pro sites, some directly about Ecco Pro. The user group that is there, the old user group, the compusol site .. as Ecco Pro is not supported anymore by the original companies, what makes which one the 'official' link. All three will claim that. You claim it, Compusol will claim the same. Both have some support in some independent blogs etc., but there is nowhere any documentation that says 'that is the official one'.

So we have a nice thing here. We have some Wikipedia specialists, with years of editing and thousands of edits between them, several are administrators (which means they, at least, were trusted members of the society) who are familiar with site policies and guidelines, and on the other side several specialists, who know the ins and outs of the software, and they know that all they say is true ... but who can not provide independent sourcing for it as it is not there. If we bring those two things in line, we will probably end up with a small article, telling about Ecco Pro. I don't think that there will be much detail left over, as a) it is not Wikipedia's task to do so, Wikipedia is not a webhost for a website about Ecco Pro, it is not a manual, &c., and b) a lot of it can not be independently verified (there is not enough to go on).

I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of ECCO include^[9]: Key release dates

• ECCO Internet address book, June 1993
• ECCO Lite 1.0, June 1993
• ECCO Simplicity, June 1993
• ECCO Professional 1.0, June 1993
• ECCO Pro 4.01, July 1997
• ECCO Pro 4 Extended, February 2006

Versions ECCO Lite: (SRP $59; sold direct by NetManage $9.99)

• For standalone users
• Calendar, PhoneBook, and Outlines
• No networking or synchronization

ECCO Internet address book (SRP $69; sold direct by netManage for $19.95)

• ECCO Lite with an ECCO file of more than 2,000 Internet URLs

ECCO Simplicity (SRP $99; sold direct by NetManage for $80; street price $65)

• For network or standalone
• Calendar, PhoneBook, Outlines
• Cusotmizable PhoneBook forms
• Group scheduling, synchronization
• Shared Calendars, PhoneBooks, and Outlines
• Integration with Delrina WinFax PRO

ECCO Professional (SRP $279, street price $175–$199)

• For network or standalone
• Calendar, PhoneBook, Outlines
• Cusotmizable PhoneBook forms
• Group scheduling, synchronization
• Shared Calendars, PhoneBooks, and Outlines
• Integration with Delrina WinFax PRO
• Customizable folders, and columns for categorizing and organizing info
• Filters and sorts for selective viewing of info

ECCO Professional Extended (Freeware)

• For network or standalone
• Calendar, PhoneBook, Outlines
• Cusotmizable PhoneBook forms
• Group scheduling, synchronization
• Shared Calendars, PhoneBooks, and Outlines
• Integration with Delrina WinFax PRO
• Customizable folders, and columns for categorizing and organizing info
• Filters and sorts for selective viewing of info
• REGEX Quick Search and Filtering
• Year 2000 compliant
• Dependent item setting
• Programic Folder assigments
• Python, perl, VB Script, JavaScript, Ruby and LUA scripting
• Indexed lookup columns
• Mouse Wheel Support
• Context Free Notepads
• Automatic Folder/Item tracking
• Tooltip item summaries
• Data Corruption prevention

No. As explained before, this is not Ecco Pro's website where prices and lavish details are provided. You may think that persistence will eventually triumph, and it is possible that the editors (I think four of us) who are encouraging a cleanup of the article may leave and so "lose", but it is inevitable that others will arrive, and this article will be trimmed down to verifiable and appropriate text. As a single purpose editor you may not be familiar with standards expected in encyclopedic articles, and it would be in the interests of the article for you to work out how to include material you would like, while limiting the detail and accepting reasonable text from the "other side" (Compusol). There is no chance of a link to Compusol being excluded by some appeal to fairness (but they charge $10), so please just work out how to accommodate your desire for a good summary of the product with the realities of a collaborative and neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you resort to personally directed attack and attempts to discredit another editor. The bulk of this text was inserted by previous editors, not myself. It was removed, not by coincidence, in conjunction with compusol links injection attempts. Your view of us against you and 'losing' is not helpful. Here is proposed text. Please direct your comments to the text and not to me as an editor. Please stop attempting to discredit me. Apparently you have a problem because I am an expert in the subject of this article. Enough.

What is your specific issue with the proposed text ? YSWT (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, no. This is not the amount of detail that is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Certain info of this could be incorporated, if it is notable enough, but most of this is trivial. There is e.g. nothing special about 'Mouse Wheel Support', being year 2000 compliant, or the pricing.

And then I haven't even started .. 'Versions of ECCO include', and then '<ref>Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance Volume 14 Issue 5, Pages 41 - 47.</ref>' .. a good and reliable source (it is published by Wiley Interscience), good for establishing notability of the article. But the article in that reference does NOT mention a single word about any other version than 4.01, it does not say anything about the pricing except that it can be downloaded for free from the netmanage website, it compares it, in quite positive words, with other PIMs, but notices that it is not developed anymore, except that it is kept alive on some other websites. It does not say anything about Data Corruption prevention, Context Free Notepads, REGEX quick search and Filtering .. whatever.

Just to be complete:

• Bean, LuAnn; Barlow, Judith; Hott, David (2003). "PIMs: Is It Time to Give Up Your Day Planner". Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance. 14 (5). Wiley: 41–47. doi:10.1002/jcaf.10182. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

It was included, unreferenced, by someone else, indeed. As Johnuniq says, there were several editors having problems with (parts of) this text (and I think that Johnuniq mentions what is the problem with it, as have the others, and I, in the past). Still you want to re-insert it as is. I am sorry, it does not belong here. I have asked you, and Johnuniq is mentioning things along the same line, please read WP:RS, WP:V, etc., and try to follow those policies and guidelines. There is no reason why this article should be different in not following these policies and guidelines. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is suitable for wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Cameron and Dirk. Nuujinn (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So at this point the specific issues with the proposed text are:

• Sourcing for post 4.01 version functionality
• Sourcing for pricing information
• Some detail to small to some editors views, such as mousewheel support and Y2k compliance.

Anything else ? YSWT (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, YSWT, most of the information is not encyclopedic, and for nothing there is independent, reliable sourcing. Remember, I have asked, over and over and over, to provide independent, reliable sourcing (and from now on, I am going to add, pertinent to the specific part of the subject that we are trying to prove the notability of), but you have not provided that. Product specification as such is not notable, we are not writing a software manual of software specification here. That is the function of the product sheets and/or the software manual itself, not of Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is pretty much devoid of sources. Since I've purchased a copy of the PC Magazine archives, I think I can produce a slimmer version that is well sourced. Does anyone have an objection to this (based in policy, of course)? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be nice to have a playground where you could start. Is this something for a sandbox first, so others can have a look at it? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem, I'll do a draft and post as a subpage here, and then we can discuss it. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as an expert in this subject I have a huge objection. Generally, this is the problem of those without any knowledge of the subject attempting to do an encyclopedia article on it. There are tons of sources for the functionality. PC Magazine is your key source for functinoality of ECCO PRO ? Look, I am sorry. You should learn about a subject before attempting to re-write an article on it that was written by those who are familiar with the subject. There are entire periodicals, (published print magazines) dedicated to ecco pro. Why not research those-- or I can even send you some, and use those to support the existing, and accurate text. Or use official product manuals for functionality, as in other software, etc. YSWT (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bring any sources you like to the party, as long as they conform to WP policies. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You ok with official product manual for technical capabilities ? You ok with official documentation website as proper reference ? YSWT (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, what is independent about those? What RS give them due weight? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, YSWT, we are looking for independent, reliable sourcing (and pertinent to the part of the subject that we are writing about). That it is written in the official documentation website or in the product manual does not make certain parts of the software notable. And note, you have been asked for such references over and over and over. YSWT, it is now, what, three years that you are here, and almost since the beginning you have been asked to provide independent notability of subjects, or of parts of subjects. Product sheets and official documentation are primary sources, they are great to prove it is there, but it does not make anything that is there notable (>95% of the software is Y2K compliant .. it is not something that Wikipedia should talk about, except if it was the very first piece of software that is Y2K compliant, or if it uses a special algorithm to solve the Y2K problem, not just that it is Y2K compliant, if I want to know that, then I will look in the software specification; it is even more notable that software, in 2010 is not Y2K compliant). E.g. if the DDE API is important, then independent sources will have said why or that it is important, if they don't, then, albeit we can prove it is there, that it is an necessary part of the software, even that the software would not work without it, it is not the amount of detail that Wikipedia should talk about. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetra, notable not the issue. Issue is reliable reference. Specifically is official documentation website or product manual reliable reference for software functionality fact ?

Do you have any wikiguideline as reference for your 'notable' argument outside of deletion context. Is it editors who decide what is notable, or is notability determined by external media ? Looking over many software articles makes clear functionality discussions do not include reference to 'notability' references.

Y2k non-compliance in '97 version relevant to understanding history of product. No refence in '97 doc to a bug, but refernce in '10 doc to bug fix. Also, discussion on which features are helpful to list in article is healthy.

" if the DDE API is important, then independent sources will have said why or that it is important" but the vast majority of software articles don't have such 'independent' sources for product features, the features generally are listed and referenced to official docs. Some features such as DDE API are more than standard features, and have been referenced by 2nd party sources. API, btw, notably mentioned in Wordyard article. YSWT (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, with 'tstr'. Why do you and THI keep on writing it wrong.

• Again, it is a reliable source for that it is there, not for that it is notable.
• Again, read our policies and guidelines. "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles.".
• I explained the points about Y2K. Again, here is nothing special about it. See point 2. It is just trivial.
• So .. we have a lot of material failing our policies and guidelines. Sigh. I don't see a reason why this article should be the samem, why do you insist in wanting to violate our policies and guidelines.

YWST, it is clear that you have not read our policies and guidelines. It is all there what we say. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Beetstra more personal attacks. YSWT (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is here a personal attack? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, you wrote "YWST, it is clear that you have not read our policies and guidelines." and "you insist in wanting to violate our policies and guidelines". Both statements are directed against me personally. Your statement that I want "to violate wikipedia policies ang guidelines" is libelous. This is a talk page about article text. I have offered text as a starting point for discussion. The discussion should be about the text, not about me. If I had insisted on making contested changes to the article even as it was being discussed on the talk page and prior to concensus, perhaps a comment that conduct would be appropriate. But then, I'm not the editor doing that here, am I. YSWT (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:: This is the second (third?) time you have used the word libellous on this page, legal threats or the impression of legal threats are strictly prohibited and will lead to your account being blocked. I have left a warning on your page explaining this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, YSWT (sorry for my typo in your name, by the way), we are telling you over and over, that certain information should not be included under our policies and guidelines. It has also been removed for that reason from the article. There was a whole set of information there, which is not supported by suitable, independent references. It fails our verifiability guideline, specifically "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles.". I have asked you, and others have asked you, to propose information that passes our policies and guidelines. There are here a handful of editors saying that it does not. There are no suitable sources for it, most of it is trivial. And the sources that you, until now, have proposed do not help for that. They are not suitable. I am asking you, and I have asked you, to follow our policies and guidelines, but you repeat the same arguments over and over, while it is explained to you, over and over, that those sources are not suitable per our policies and guidelines. I am sorry, but if you want to re-include something that has been argumented to be removed, then try to re-write it, try to find proper references for it, and propose it here. And that is what Nuujinn is working on.

According to the contested edits .. unreferenced or unreliably referenced information should be removed .. information that is in violation with our policies and guidelines can be removed at any time. That does not need consensus. Inclusion does need consensus. See e.g. WP:EL, it says there "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.". Hence, prove before inclusion, not just include and leave it there and wait until enough people say that it is not appropriate and then remove it. Wikipedia has a problem stated in huge text here, keeping unreliably sourced or unsourced information there does not make that better .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None is that really relates to my original comments or your question. Respectful discussion is what is being requested. You feel that your views about wikipedia are superior to mine. Ok.. Notably too, Cameron Scott has now explained to me (s)he is going to take action to have me banned from wikipedia. Since Cameron Scott has made repeated personal attacks here in an attempt to discredit me as an editor, such action is not altogether surprising. YSWT (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not agree that wikipolicy requires all facts stated in an article to be referenced, although certainly unreferenced facts can be challenged, which then would require referencing. YSWT (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, although I do not agree with your interpretation of policy, please note we are (or at the very least I am) challenging the unreferenced facts. There were numerous factual errors and mis-attribution in the article for the referenced material, and likely the same holds for the rest of it.

Also, Cameron has not threatened you, but rather warned you that legal threats are strictly prohibited on WP. We are all trying to get you to understand policy. I think you should take a deep breath and consider your motivations--it seems to me that you might have a very strong conflict of interest which may be interfering with your judgment on these matters to some degree. Please keep in mind that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to promote products or ideas, nor are we here to hand out the truth. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have the right to do it in theory, but do not think generally challenging all facts in an article is helpful. Do think it is very helpful to focus on specific issues, and build references. For technical aspects of a program, the fact is easily verifiable as true, so requiring reference to establish the fact does not add to the factual accuracy of the article. For facts the truth of which is in question, challenging the fact is important to the accuracy of the article. At any rate, references are healthy and improve the artilce.

@Nuujinn, to your POV, is official manual reliable reference for product functionality ? For product developed by group, is official documentation wiki a reliable reference for product specifications, to your view ? YSWT (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameran has threatned me explicitly. He has written on my talk page "I am going to have to move to have this account blocked. --Cameron Scott" that seems very clear.

"We are all trying to get you to understand policy." Well, "WE" are all trying to get eachother to understand policy. There is no grant of 'superior' POV in frequent as opposed to infrequent editors. If it seems that it is "WE ALL" that is only because the infrequent editors have not contributed to the discussion at this point. Aside from the "WE" against "YOU" view, which really is not to my view helpful or appropriate, every editor has the right to explain to every other his POV about wiki policies. Argument can be supported by actual reference to policies. I've provided them as requested, and others have and have not provided in support of their positions. But, just because I infrequently edit, or am dragged into editing this article vastly more than other contributions I make occassionally to wikipedia, does not mean I deserve any more or less respect, or that my POV is any more or less valid than the POV any any other editor. The whole "US" "YOU" bit seems a very slanted perspective. The issues are the issues, the personal attack does not contribut toward it.

If you have something specific I've expressed which you feel is overly emotional and not supported by reference, please point out specifically. In looking over recent edits, you seemed to take personal my general comment that your proposed text included editorial choices made. You expressly commented with concern that it was a comment directed personally at you. Or, Beetstra took personal mine (and at least one other editors) misspelling of his name on occasion, even as he mispelled mine. Do not see the recent edits being particularly emotionally charged on my side, and do not think I am alone in recognizing that there has been a pattern of personal attacks made against me. Again, all this avoids the specific article based issue I have raised. YSWT (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure hope those who really want to build an article will work toghether here with mutual respect and focus toward the issues. My suggested first step is to discuss and arive at consensus on what is considered a reliable reference for software functionality and historical version enhancements.YSWT (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although you are not asking for my POV: I think that the the product manual or a product specification sheet is a reliable source for product functionality. It is however a primary source, and it is not a reliable source for whether said functionality should be mentioned here. 'The software has a close-button' can be referenced to the product manual, which most probably tells you how to shut down the program .. but the fact is not notable, as practically every program has a close button. It might be notable if an independent source, i.e. not the product manual or anything that is connected to the program itself (including forums, blogs, fansites, the product website, it would even exclude reviews for which the program owner has paid to get it published, etc., and it excludes blog/forum/whatever posts written by someone who is independent from the subject, it has to be a proper, independent reliable source), has written that the actual close button is special for some obscure reason (but I think it should be quite special then). Otherwise, the sentence, even while we all knowing it is true, 'The software has a close-button' does not have a justified reason for it being mentioned. And note, I am not disputing anything that is written or was written on Ecco Pro, I am disputing that a lot of it is not properly referenced. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Dirk on this issue, although I will add as caveats that the manual in question would have to be the one published with the release version (I say that since some editors have called web sites the "official source" for the software without providing references supporting that assertation), and that I do not believe more than a few paragraphs covering functionality are justified, since we are not a manual or howto guide. My suggestion would be that we use primary sources such as the manual only to verify material presented in reliable 2ndary sources.

In regard to the other issues, YSWT, take the advice or not, but when multiple people are telling you the same thing you might give what they are saying due consideration. Nuujinn (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given, as an infrequent contributor, my time does not allow to keep up reading all what followed my contribution of a few days ago.

Just to clarify some of YSWT’s insertions, CompuSol is not a “single-person” entity. Our contribution to the EccoPro community started 12 years ago and is well-documented even on YSWT’s sites (see “http://forums.eccomagic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168845948/1"). Contrary to YSWT’s statements we always acknowledged and referenced new developments, his contributions and we had always the courtesy to link to his or other relevant web pages (see “compusol.org/ecco”):

Some geeks have figured out how to manipulate Ecco’s program structure, and are able to

enhance the use of EccoPro with the help of some program extensions in areas never thought of

before. If you are interested in additional features of EccoPro and have the time to contribute by

debugging this new development please join our sister group “ecco_pro” at Yahoo.

We also created a training video referencing the new developments and YSWT’s web sites at “http://www.compusol.org/ecco/video/video_yt.html”.

But here is my issue with the main page. The infrequent Wikipedia visitor who is searching the web to get a grip on what EccoPro is and what EccoPro can provide to enhance his life is overwhelmed with technical details. The “product functionality” part is badly written and nebulous. It does not give any clear line of context nor does it reference the pictures displayed. The free encyclopedia Wikipedia should not be a technical reference for EccoPro users.

Here at CompuSol we use EccoPro since 1995 in a networked environment. We know well how EccoPro works under the hood. Following several member requests we were able to adjust the old 16-bit installer for today’s operating systems and the latest Palm synching issues. Here is my version of a true description open for consideration(see “compusol.org/ecco/video/”).

Please feel free to edit the below:

EccoPro uses outlining as the basic metaphor for Information Management. The software incorporates universal outlining into each of its productivity modules. An outline allows users to see the most information quickly by collapsing and expanding the outline from macro to micro context. Combined with the database metaphor it is possible to bring diverse information together. It is this combination of outlining and database metaphors that is well suited for finding and understanding everyday information.

Outlining puts information in context. It indicates how information relates to other information and it puts this information in an order of importance. Inherently, outlines are an easier way to facilitate the thinking process than other means. Because outlining is very visual; relationships between ideas become very evident. What makes EccoPro different is its combining of all of the best benefits of a structured database oriented Information Manager with outlining. Personal Information Managers have always been able to manage small amounts of information, but if you want to manage large amounts of information it becomes more difficult.

To be truly valuable, a user is able to store, categorize and cross-reference all of his information, not just the material that conveniently fits into a database form. That means it must be easily moved into the Information Manager from other applications. And once the information has been moved, it must be easy to organize and relate it to other data, sometimes in more than one context. EccoPro will also help users think about problems, analyze them from different perspectives and reach better decisions.

Mobility, or lack of it, is another problem Information Management has faced. While users may keep a wealth of information on their systems, it is of no benefit when they are not working at their computers. Paper printouts of Calendars, To-do lists and Phone Books don't work because they provide only a slice of the total information contained in an Information Manager. Software that is truly the center of a user's daily activities must be mobile. The industry is in the midst of a stampede to mobile computers in all shapes and sizes. Form factors from small Netbooks and Smartphones to Notebooks are gaining capabilities and declining in price. With the proliferation of such affordable mobile platforms, users will be increasingly reticent to accept a handful of paper printouts when they can have their whole information base at their fingertips.

Just as categorizing and organizing information makes it more valuable to an individual, sharing information among groups of people is critical in today's increasingly collaborative work environment. Email as it is in use today promotes understanding and enhances productivity. A well-integrated Information Manager is the perfect complement to Email. Exchanging information in the form of Email over a network is valuable enough, but the ability to incorporate that information into an information management system where it can be organized, categorized and cross-referenced is a powerful and addictive concept.

Workgroup Information Managers must accomplish other critical tasks, including group scheduling and calendar management. But merely confirming the meeting is not enough. People need to prepare for the meeting and that means having an agenda in advance and the other relevant supporting information necessary to make the meeting productive. Therefore, the Information Manager must be flexible enough to accomplish more than merely scheduling the meeting. The meeting agenda should become a living document, forming the basis for follow-up, and tracking individuals' responsibilities. Thus, the Information Manager becomes the hub of daily activity. It not only is a place to find information, but is a management tool that facilitates decision making and enhances productivity.

This sets the stage for EccoPro, software that is able not only to track and compile information, but surround it with the context necessary for it to have real value. Information viewed in the framework of related information becomes extremely powerful. It is this ability to create meaningful relationships among items of information that forms the basis of a decision-making tool. In addition to traditional features such as Calendar, Phone Book, To-do list, Project Management, etc., EccoPro includes Dynamic Notes, OLE client support, context-based information and the ability to view information from various perspectives. Information may be entered anywhere - the Phone book, Calendar or Outline - and viewed in the way that is most meaningful.

The flexibility to adjust to the needs of different professions and individuals, the ability to customize the layout for the most efficient use and the powerful capability to view information in the context of related information is what separates EccoPro from other Information Management applications.

Studying the lengthy often hostile discussions on the “talk pages”, it is clear to me the inability

to reach an agreement regarding the links. My recommendation would be to use just a simple description,

less technical mumbo jumbo and to insert not any or all links.

Fdohmann (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Offtext, just to correct one fact, and make one small comment. Do now own 'other sites' as asserted. I contribute to many ecco related projects and 'sites' (notably using my same name) because I have been requesed to do so, enjoy the subject, and believe the contribution is meaningful. The videos were something that I thought would be helpful, it has been pointed out to me by someone involved with making the videos, that these are actually eccopro videos from the 90's with the copyright removed and a compusol promotion inserted. At any rate.. YSWT (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The video I refer to is not from the 90's. Please see "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIfDcCFLzRg". It was produced by and at CompuSol in March of this year! Fdohmann (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. To my view, enriches article to provide links to resources such as alternative media (video, etc.) which explain about the subject. YSWT (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ontext, this is exactly the kind of promotion which have been working to restrain in article for past several years. What ecco does is unique from a functional perspective. This article is the place to provide the information about the subject, not to promote it. There is a huge difference. Just as it is wrong to cut out the factual information about the product which makes it unique, it is wrong to promote the software. What it is is cool. that is what this article should be about--- What is Ecco. That is very different than, how great is ecco, etc. That's my POV.YSWT (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text is completely unsuitable, reads like an ad/personal ramble and will never be used, there is maybe a line of useful content in there. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you Cameron. This is just a sample. Per my recommendation the proposed description can be and should be edited to remove any appearance of promoting EccoPro. There might be some lines which can be used. But it explains what EccoPro is better than the present overview or the “product functionality” section. Fdohmann (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe text suggested is more in relation to what ecco can be used to do. If you can find reliable references, that would, to my POV, be very relevant and helpful to the article. YSWT (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This text is very suitable .. for the homepage of Ecco Pro, or for the a description on whereever. However, it is unsuitable for use in Wikipedia. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a product specification, a manual, an essay (which this is ..) or a Ecco Pro promotion text. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I read somewhere that somebody purchased the PC Magazine on-line archives? Here are two more articles from the CompuSol archives regarding ECCO: "http://www.compusol.org/ecco/pcmagbest93.pdf" and "http://www.compusol.org/ecco/ecco93.pdf". The later was written by Gregg Keizer and published September 14, 1993. I edited his article in a form hopefully suitable for Wikipedia. If not, I would need help from you all: Fdohmann (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ECCO Professional, a decidedly different personal information manager (PIM) for Microsoft Windows, takes an unusual approach to organizing contacts, phone calls, appointments, meetings and projects.

The program does not use a form-based database and a Day-Timer-style calendar, as most PIM’s do, instead it is built around outlines and adds powerful cross-referencing tools that make it look almost spreadsheet-like. The result is a PIM similar of two earlier attempts at the same kind of thing: Lotus Agenda and Symantec’s GrandView.

The outline-like interface is crucial to ECCO's power. Each name, each phone call, and each meeting is an item in an outline. Because they're discrete objects, not simply fields in a database, someone can organize them at will by clicking and dragging, just as within a word processor’s outliner. And since Ecco organizes these items into folders, the user can create cross-referencing connections between people and notes or meetings and projects just as easily. Drag a task’s outline into multiple folders, perhaps those labeled with specific contacts and the information appears in each person’s individual folder. Change the information in any folder, and it changes everywhere.

The outline structure is bolstered by the addition of columns, which makes ECCO look somewhat like a spreadsheet. In the phone book, for instance, the user can easily create a column named “Call-Back”, that when clicked enters a check mark. Since the column is itself a folder, it will show all call-back obligations just by dragging the folder into an outline window. Even more flexible is ECCO’s ability to build ad hoc outline views based on combinations of folders. Dragging the “Done” folder to an open outline and all completed tasks will appear. Drag and drop the “Cost Estimate” folder onto a column, and all completed projects are accompanied by a dollar figure.

The program provides templates specific to such areas as legal, research, project management, and time management. Other aids include optional short-form menus that hide the program’s advanced features, extensive on-line help, and ECCO’s comprehensive documentation.

ECCO’s calendar and phone book are immediately accessible. The phone book may show a form at the bottom of the screen, but it’s actually an outline too. There is no way to add fields to the default form other than to create a custom form, but the user can add new columns to each name item to show such things as the last contact date or the result of the last phone call. The phone book dials numbers through a modem and times and logs calls. It also supports searches based on first name, last name, company name, item text, or any of its standard columns.

The calendar shows appointments and meetings in a list-like format, marking allocated time with colored bars. The user can peruse commitments in day, week, or month views, drag name items from the phone book to create a call or contact ticklers, set both simple and complicated alarms, and mark to-do items as done. Since it’s just another outline, the calendar can be customized too; adding a name column designating who’s handling what task takes just a few clicks of the mouse.

ECCO provides some handy gadgets. Its “Shooter”, a one-step-copy-and-past tool, sends a selected item’s text to other active Windows applications and documents and imports text directly into a variety of ECCO outline views. The toolbar is eminently customizable, and through group scheduling someone can share outline views with others on the network. It is possible to embed documents into an outline for fast retrieval, as well as launch applications directly from ECCO. Searches are fast, and a comprehensive filtering system with Boolean operators will display information in an outline.

Fdohmann (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fdohmann, with all due respect we cannot use material from the compusol web site as sources, and this material is way too detailed for our purposes. I did purchase the pc mag archives, working my way through them now. It's kind of a pita, I'm a mac user running win7 in a sun virtualbox and the pc mag software is pretty crudy. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, the above text edited today of the PC Magazine "First Look" "ecco93.pdf" is not part of the CompuSol site. I uploaded the PDF only for your reference. There is no link to PC Magazine's "First Look" of 1993 on any of our sites. Cut down on some details and free the article of any value judgement like "ECCO provides some handy gadgets" (I forgot to edit that one ...) and remove the first paragraph, the last two, any prices and any "personal address" Gregg Keizer is using in his article. I have the printed version and the online version of any PC Magazine from 1984 to 2003 stored. Safe your time in the win7 virtualbox, the "First Look" version of 1993 introducing ECCO is the only one worth to be edited as reference. Fdohmann (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, even when the article is legit, I think it's bad form to use it if we get it from a web site not associated with the source magazine, since we can't verify that it is legit. Nuujinn (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Fdohmann: Again, the text you have just written is great for a website dedicated to Ecco Pro, but it is totally unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. Text like yours should be on the product's official website, and this article should give a brief overview, with a link to the official website. One problem is that this product has no official website in any normal sense of that term, and Wikipedia cannot be used as a substitute for the lack of an official website. Note that a brief overview in an encyclopedia should answer questions like: what is it? who uses it? what platforms does it run on? what awards has it won? has it been used in any notable situations? Reliable sources would be needed to verify assertions. To save everyone time and discomfort, would people please acknowledge that this article will never be able to lavishly detail the product's features, and language like "crucial to ECCO's power" and "bolstered by" (and a lot more) will never be suitable here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, can we adopt these as goals for the article ? To bring information about ecco pro to the reader:

• What is Ecco Pro.
• Who uses it.
• What platforms does it run on ?
• What awards has it won ?
• What notable situations has it been used in ?

which suggest,

• What notable persons use it ?

and,

• Using facts which are verifiable.

(Some goal is behind the language you didn't approve of, can you articulate that goal ?) THI (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, believe has been established by reliable references that ecco pro is actively developed and user's group is office site of development and distribution. Thus software does have official website, as established by reliable references. Is unusual that official website is user group. Similarly, per reliable references, documentation provided by the user group , per user group page, location of official documentation the 'eccowiki'. Unusual. Factually accurate. Supported by reliable references. Ingredients for interesting and informative article-- if those end up being among the goals that agreed on by consensus.THI (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, with respect, the user group may assert that they are the "official" web site, compusol might also assert that, but only the holder of the copyright could bestow that title, and we could only reference that if we had a reliable source that supported that assertion. Does such exist? The user group is clearly not a reliable source.

Also, from what what I've read, the source code has not been opened, and although the software is freely distributed, it's still under copyright. Strictly speaking, I believe that Ecco itself is not being developed--what is being developed are extensions that modify the program. --Nuujinn (talk)

Good point. official web site not proper terminology. Distribution site for documentation and software more accurate. 3rd party source establishing user group distributes and documents software, establishes reliability of site for technical information. That tech. reference establishes development is to ecco itself, patches binary with update of program code. Ecco has a DDE API which allows extending functionality by external code. The new development is, per user group documentation, modification of/ update of actual ecco program. If someone with more knowledge could bring forward further references on this, suggest would improve article. THI (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, again, be very careful with the blogs, Woodyard is significantly better than some personal blogspot blog, but it is still a blog. Please see our verifiability guideline for info on how to use sources: "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (that sentence is preceded by "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable.", noting that these blogs are self-published sources). Woodyard is such a case which should be used with caution. And note, Woodyard does not say that the user group is the official site, it can only be concluded that it is an important site regarding Ecco Pro. Also, I have not included it saying that it was the official site, my words were more in line with that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And says that is site of the software development and documentation. THI (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Scott Rosenberg's mentioning is less than that .. it just says that someone is updating the program there .. I would not even go as far as saying that it is a site of software development and documentation. It's a site where someone developed something to keep the software running. It does not even exclude if there are others doing the same. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there consensus on the specific goals desired to be achieved for this article ? THI (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends which consensus you mean. The consensus should be something along the lines: 'writing an article according to Wikipedia's core policies, the other policies, and guidelines', I think. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. One specific goal, is an article which complies with wikipedia's guidelines. Helpful. Now, beyond that, what are the goals for this article. What do we desire to achieve here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by THI (talk • contribs) 14:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That the content is based on reliable sources and anything else is stubbed and removed. If a reliable source is not talking about it, why the hell are we? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

Do you feel the goal for this article should be more strict, requiring citation of all material, even if not a quotation or something not likely to be challenged ? (If you do, that POV is legitimate and part of what we should be discussing in determining our (all of us) common goals for this article.) THI (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be challenged by me (and I'm sure other editors). The onus on sourcing is on those who wish to include information not people removing it. As a first step, we should go through the article, line by line and remove anything that is not based upon reliable sources. We can then build upon on that material with additional sources. If sources don't exist, then there is nothing to expand. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idem here. I would suggest that we start with an article in which EVERYTHING is properly sourced, and from there see if some expansion is possible. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And further to my previous points, it's cart before horses to say "well the article should include X,Y and Z" because after all of this time, we have maybe 4, 5(?) reliable sources to build an article on. Reliable sources are the foundation of a wikipedia article and without them, there is nothing to 'build'. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, let's focus on reaching agreement on common goals. Cameron would like a goal to be a strict requirement that all facts be referenced. Beetstra is open to the possibility of some expansion beyond the properly sourced as an end result, and suggests using only sourced text to start as a working procedure. To avoid conflict and editing wars, etc. let's find consensus on what we are trying to do here. Hope you'll both agree that if we do that first, may resolve most of the conflict, and create a positive, unified, and shared editing environment for all involved. Cameron, are you both willing to discuss this goal (and the others which other editors may desire) and reach consensus with all editors as to goals for this article ? THI (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, helpful if we first set ultimate goals we can all agree upon for article, and from there develop consensus on specific procedures for editing, such as starting with referenced only and building from there, etc. THI (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 'goal' that all material must be properly sourced is core policy and is not up for discussion or negotiation. I have no idea what you mean by "possibility of some expansion beyond the properly sourced as an end result". Get this straight, it's properly sourced or it's subject to erasure at any moment, that's an unmovable, not open to discussion, reality of a wikipedia article. This article cannot operate outside of the normal policies and procedures of wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this discussion is back to front, as you want to discuss content before we sort what reliable sources exists. It's would be easier for us to find what reliable sources there are (if there are any more that exist beyond what we are currently using in the article) and see if we can sort more of the unsourced content that exists (or remove it if it's not possible) and use the sources to expand if it's possible. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems to me the proper tack is to strip the article down and add only material that can be well sourced. THI, I can't speak for Dirk but I do not see him making any call for exceeding the parameters defined in policy. Nuujinn (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in discussing this point-- Policy clearly allows for non referenced text in articles. Policy also strongly promotes marking non referenced text for citation as opposed to deletion. On an article about software, the suggest approach is puzzling. Would make more sense to seek references for the material. That is constructive. 18:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THI (talk • contribs)

THI, I, amongst others, have asked for independent, reliable sources for a long, long time. And (core) policy suggests to remove anything that requires but lacks a source. Yes, if you think that the references are there, then one could leave it. But as I said, we have been asking for independent, reliable sources for a long, long time, and they have not been supplied .. why {{fact}} tag stuff which could not be referenced for months now? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, don't confuse things. Goal 1, and that is where Cameron Scott, Nuujinn and I agree fully upon as I read it: get everything sourced properly (i.e., FULL compliance with the relevant policies), and delete everything that is not properly sourced. Lets do that first, shall we.

Note, with the expansion I do not mean inclusion based on some wiki, blogspot, yahoo forum, or whatever, I would there consider the sources where our policies and guidelines are giving statements as 'largely not accepted', 'those with a poor reputation for checking the facts', or 'but only with care' (and expect that we might go via WP:RS/N for those sources to see if they are good enough for the statements that are suggested). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the article at the moment uses a mix of the two: proper sources (real independent WP:RS), and sources which are questionable (of which WP:V would suggest to be careful, to avoid them or similar wording). At least there are no sources which are plain no-no's .. But I would, as Cameron suggests, even remove the ones which are questionable for now, and those may be the ones we want to discuss after that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, all have asked is that we discuss and reach consensus on the goals for this article. With common goals we can all work together toward the same end. Cameron has stated he/she is not willing to discuss. Cameron believes their POV as to wikipedia guidelines are the correct view, and is not willing to discuss. THI (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think asking for discussion and arriving at common goals for the article is not asking to much from any editor. If there are editors who feel every statement in an article must be referenced as a matter of wikipedia policy, I disagree. If we can discuss this and everyone is open to persuasion, let's discuss. If not, let's see what issues are in conflict and resolve them by formal mediation.

The point is to resolve areas of conflict up front. Also, by having agreed upon common goals, reached by consensus, we can all be playing on the same team. Which is what wikipidia is all about. THI (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am not calling on anyone to accept anyone's view at this point, only that we make a clear list of desired objectives, and arrive at consensus. Where there is conflict we fail to resolve by discussion, let's resolve by mediation. That way, we will have a shared map of where we are going and what we are doing. We can all play on the same team. THI (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. So, yes, you are right, not everything needs to be sourced, if there are statements in the text which can not be challenged. At the moment, the whole section product functionality, i.e. the core of the software, is totally unreferenced, except for one sentence. Do you really think that that is unchallengeable information? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to this sub issue with hope return to primary issue of reaching agreed upon specific goals for article. Agree references should be added. In user manual, in reliable 3rd party sites, in stack of my Easy ECCO subscription from the '90s there are hundreds of articles on ecco pro functionality.

Let's agree on our goals, and have common goals so that all here are working in exactly same direction. Then let's agree on reference reliability. For Ex., YSWT has written on ecco internal details such as memory limits. Do we recognize (after discussion and consensus) his 'original research' published elsewhere as reliable ? THI (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, that is exactly one of the type of sources which is questionable. I think Nuujinn, Cameron Scott and I were clear, lets first try and use proper sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. We cannot agree locally (that is to say on this specific article) that original research is ok, it's not permitted, it's not allowed, it's forbidden, it's against core policy. It's not happening. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq has made large contribution to this discussion by listing several clear and concrete goals for this article. Others with further contribution ? (Goal of following guidelines, or, 'have every sentence referenced', etc. also legitimate and helpful goal proposals for establishing common goals). Once we have list of suggested goals, we can discuss any there is not consensus on. THI (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, you've been asking us for the goals for this article, and I think that you got some input here on that, may I ask you what your goals for this article are? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting my time going around in circles talking about vague non-points. It's pretty clear this is an attempt to talk long enough so that someone will say something that can be seized upon as support for adding original research and sources that are not RS to the article. Well I'm not playing that game. If anyone has any *specific* sources they want to discuss and *specific* edits they went to add, let's hear about them, otherwise I'm not going to waste my time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead, and clean the article, fact tagging anything. I expect that anything fact-tagged can be removed at will when no suitable sources are produced. Lets see some sources. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Scott, are you assuming good faith ?? YSWT (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, you are unwilling to work on this article by concensus ?? YSWT (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My goal suggestions to add: Article should be interesting, informative, and accurate. It should include the history of the subject and the unique inventions and conceptions involved in the product and its functionality. The article should include the story of how the product was purchased by larger companies, and then eventually abanonded, what features provided by the product led to a dedicated user base, and how that led eventually to the release of the program as freeware and then the continued development of the program. The article should provide information as to the current context of the program, its user base, available add-ons. History of the product should include the original extensions, and how their functionality was later incorporated into the program. Also, WHO was involved in creating this software, and what happened to them, also part of story. YSWT (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A) I am working by the consensus which has established our policies and guidelines.

B) Yes, that is my goal as well, the article should be interest, informative and accurate. That last can only be done by using independent, reliable sources. And yes, all the rest is indeed part of the story, but .. if it can not be independently, reliably referenced, then .. well .. then how do we know it is true? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, WP policy relieves us of worry about what is true--our goal is what can be verified. YSWT, ECCO Pro is freeware, but I believe strictly speaking that it is not being developed. What is being developed are extensions that manipulate the last release version. Without access to the source code and permission from the copyright holder of the source code, development of the application itself is not possible. Your desire to paint a lush portrait of the software and activities surrounding it are evident, but you'll have to provide verifiable and reliable sources for whatever you wish to add. There is no need for consensus on that issue, it is a matter of policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've written a new version of the Product functionality section based on the material in the PC Magazine archives. It is up here as a subpage. My suggestions has to how to use this are on that page, but basically, I suggest we edit the second copy at the bottom, but comment on what we are doing here. It's rough on purpose, but I think the sourcing is good. Nuujinn (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wonderful starting point. Thanks!! I see you found the rest of the sources, I only saw a couple of the articles in PC magazine. I don't have any immediate suggestions on how to improve this, IMHO, this can be used as such, and we can then wait for suggestion on what can be added (properly referenced, of course). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

great stuff, I agree this can be used as is (the second version) and should be dropped straight into the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I think it adds a lot to the functionality section, providing perspective of pop cultural appraisal as to the software. Missing the functionality that is actually important from a ISc. perspective, those things which are dealt with in speciality sources, such as the products reference manual, and specialist publications such as the mentioned above EasyECCO magazine. Also note the information is dated, and while providing incredible historical background does not provide information about current software. Thus, "wow" a major contribution to the article as an addition to existing functionality text. YSWT (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, this is a major contribution to this article. Thanks. If I invest my time to find references in the (1) Netmanage Ecco User Manual from '97, (2) the EasyEcco magazines, (3) The eccowiki documentation for the active development features, and the eccomagic closed forums for interal memory specs, is that going to be supported ? YSWT (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

neither forums or a wiki are a reliable source and cannot be used in anyway - I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before to you? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, I am sure that you checked if these pass our policies and guidelines. And you are free to include material that you can properly source (the relevant policies and guidelines have been mentioned to you before, I am not going to reiterate them) .. if you are in doubt, please feel free to ask e.g. here. Remember, the onus of proving the worthiness of inclusion is upon the editor who wants to include the material. All material that is unsourced, or unreliably sourced can be removed without discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]