Talk:Bvckup 2

Untitled

I am lacking file upload permissions, so here are the icon and the screenshot. HelloVader (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. HelloVader (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Moved it to the Article space. The reason is that it's been sitting in the review queue for over 2 weeks with no activity, indicating that it has no glaring problems. Hopefully promoting it to the article will put more eyes on it. HelloVader (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dispute

Moved from User talk:Codename Lisa

I've reverted several of your recent changes to Bvckup 2.

From reading its homepage this is not a "unidirectional file sync software", it's a clear cut backup program. The basic definition of backup is something that creates secondary copies of the original data, which this program does. Once the article is expanded beyond its stub it might be worth mentioning that this program may also be classified as "unidirectional sync", but stating it as its primary class is misleading and factually incorrect.

Similarly, your "contrary to its name" addition to the text in one of the edits goes contrary to the definition given in the backup software article.

Additionally, Microsoft Windows is an accepted form of referring to what you appear to insist on calling "Windows XP or later", whereby the body of the article specifies the principal family of the OS (Windows, Linux, Android, etc.) and the sidebar provides the details. Have a look at other software articles for how it's done, e.g. Acronis True Image, Iperius Backup.

Addtionally, your argument for removing the "deliberate" quantifier is invalid. See my comment in the edit.

88.149.249.133 (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello.

First, you are allowed to revert something just because you don't like it. Changes supported by a policy must never be reverted, unless you have another policy-based reason or a good reason to violate the policy. You have not even attempted to provide either.

Now, on to content dispute:

1. "From reading its homepage this is not a "unidirectional file sync software", it's a clear cut backup program." We are not a mirror of the app's home page. We may say things that are more accurate. In fact, most of the time, Wikipedia completely disregards when the publisher of an app says because it is exaggerated advertisement. Our policy is WP:NPOV.
2. "[...] stating it as its primary class is misleading and factually incorrect." You are saying that it is factually inaccurate to increase the wording's accuracy? Just because the article is a stub? No, it isn't. Saying it is a backup app is incorrect, because doing so implies that it can do what most backup apps do, such as incremental backup, differential backup, and most importantly, restoring. Now, that would be inaccurate and a violation of WP:NPOV.
3. "your "contrary to its name" addition to the text in one of the edits goes contrary to the definition given in the backup software article." Fair enough. We can delete that.
4. "Microsoft Windows is an accepted form of referring to what you appear to insist on calling 'Windows XP or later'". Aha! There! You are contradicting yourself! Above, you said we must call this app "backup software" despite the fact that a unidirectional synchronization app is not an accepted form of backup software. Now you are saying accepted general perceptions are important. More importantly, however, "Microsoft Windows" is too vague. (Windows Phone is also Windows.) "Windows XP or later" is more accurate and is accepted perception too. What's wrong with being accurate anyway?
5. "your argument for removing the "deliberate" quantifier is invalid. See my comment in the edit." I did see your edit summary it reads:

   The OP edit was correct - there is a difference between not aupporting something as a design decision and not supporting it because it's not implemented.

   How on earth can you or the OP possibly know this? You cannot, unless you are the developer! If you are not the developer, you are not allowed to write this without a source, per WP:V. If you are the developer, on the other hand, you are having a WP:COI and you are not allowed to have contributed to article.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Another poor revert from you is revision 796306565 which adds "and other features" to the article. This contribution constitutes weasel words. If there are indeed other features worth mentioning, mention them. Otherwise, there is no call for attracting attention to something that is not worth attracting attention to. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, guys.

Here are my observations:

• "From reading its homepage this is not a "unidirectional file sync software"." You must have not even looked at the homepage, because this is what I see:

  It's not a two-way sync nor is it a system backup software. [Line break] It does just one thing - it mirrors A to B.

• "Similarly, your [~snip~]." Again, look at the homepage:

  It's not a two-way sync nor is it a system backup software.

• "See my comment in the edit." Why? Are you ashamed of discussing it here further, because it is stupid? I read it too. Both "design decision" and "it's not implemented" parts count as "deliberately". Neither count as "accidentally".

"Aha! There! You are contradicting yourself!" You are right. This persons uses common perception once in favor of himself and conveniently ignores it in another occasion, because he hates accuracy, and to violates WP:NPOV. Looks like a sign of reverting first and thinking later.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I wrote this stub. I was a user of the original version and have been following the development of version 2 from its early stages. I was an active WP editor between 2004 and 2006, so I am familiar with general policies and guidelines.

To comment on few things:

• The software runs on both desktop and server editions of Windows, e.g. see the license types description here and their purchase page. "Windows XP or newer" is simply incorrect.
• "Not a system backup" statement on the home page refers to the program not being a system backup, rather not being a backup in general. Developers themselves refer to the program as a "backup" or "data backup" software (examples).
• Not supporting compression or encryption is an explicit choice on their part (here and here), which is why it was phrased that way. Omitting this bit makes it unclear why these two particular features are singled out as unsupported in the first place.

HelloVader (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again

"The software runs on both desktop and server editions of Windows". Yes. I noticed that the official source has added "Windows Server 2008" as well. However, the curious things is that this sentence was not there before. It was not there on 8 August 2017. It was not there on 19 August 2017, 22:09:49 GMT either, two days after you reverted me. But it is there now. You must be a time traveler. But I am not. Hence, when I reverted revision 796311540, I was acting under auspices of WP:V.

"Not supporting compression or encryption is an explicit choice on their part". For the third time, everything that a developer does is an explicit choice. In addition, the word "deliberately" does not have that meaning. Reverse the word to see what I mean: "However, it non-deliberately does not support compression or encryption." See how meaningless it sounds? How such a sentence can never be true?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Re: "The software runs on both desktop and server editions of Windows" - I am not a time traveler (whatever it is supposed to mean), but I run a couple of Windows Server installations, that's how I knew it was supported. I found two mentions of that on the site outside the forum area. One was on the Terms page and another on the Purchase page. The latter wasn't worded clearly, so I linked you to the Terms.

Re: "Not supporting compression or encryption is an explicit choice on their part" - I hear what you are saying, but in combination with preceding "supported" list it still comes off wrong. The fact that it's an explicit decision on their part is what's notable, not the fact that it's merely mentioned as unsupported. Not that "we haven't gotten to this part yet", but "we won't do it, period." Current wording doesn't capture this distinction. See the point?

Re: "undirectional file synchronization app" - Any comments on this part? You've misinterpreted the statement on the program's site ("not a system backup") and used that to assign the program to a non-existing category. This is a backup software by any conventional definition, including WP's own definition of backup software.

HelloVader (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

Your Google search link is deliberately engineered in way a that is guaranteed to fail. Removing that hyphen increases the accuracy a lot. Searching "unidirectional file synchronization" alone gives enlightening clues about one-way sync.

As for the rest I've already said enough. Feel free to re-read them.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The link is not "deliberately engineered to fail", it merely excludes pages that mention "bvckup 2", all of which a SEO linkfarm scrapes of this WP page. If you have specific links to these "enlightening clues", please provide them.

"As for the rest I've already said enough. Feel free to re-read them." - you are evading the discussion and ignoring very specific arguments against your earlier edits. To that end I've opened a request for mediation.
HelloVader (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Refraining from repeating oneself over and over is not avoiding discussion, because repetition is a fight, not discussion. Also, in your mediation request, you didn't include me. Why? That's probably why it was rejected.

Also your own search URL has very good results like [1] (and [2]), [3], [4] and [5].

And as for that "deliberately" hoopla: (1) It does NOT mean what you think it means. (2) What you want to mean is utterly unimportant, to the point that it is sheer wordiness. Example: There were thousands of times that Microsoft deliberately made a decision to do or not to do something and later deliberately changed its decision. How a developer's brain works to reach the decision doesn't make a slight bit of difference to the consumer, not the mention developers often lie about how their brain worked to make themselves look good. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 19:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

What's "good" or even relevant about the results you linked to? "Unidirectional file sync" is not a software class. Nor is it even an established term, which is clearly demonstrated by the Google query above. But here we have not one, but two editors both insisting on using this highly unusual term against all factual arguments and common technical sense. Interesting. HelloVader (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've left a request over on Wikipedia:Third_opinion page. 19:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloVader (talk • contribs)

Good bot. HelloVader (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)