Jump to content

Talk:Ecco Pro/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

PROD history

(November 2008 PROD) I don't see the need to delete the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The Proposed Deletion was declined

I was surprised to see a move to delete the Ecco Pro article. Even though Ecco Pro's development was commercially halted in 1997, it continues to retain a loyal user base and remains an inspiration to those who want to create a better personal information manager. See, for example, Scott Rosenberg's blog entries on Ecco Pro: http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/2004/12/14.html#a796 -- which is one piece of evidence pointing to Ecco Pro's notability.

Hence I took Ecco Pro out of the queue for deletion. (My understanding is that this is the proper protocol to follow.) I hope others will not put it back in.

Raymond Yee Nov 14, 2008


I absolutely agree with Raymond - this article should not be deleted I consider it a balanced and accurate description of Ecco, which does indeed have a very loyal base of users many years after it was no longer supported Personal Info Managers are a hobby of mine and I see little fault at all with the article
Grushevskogo (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that the article should not be deleted. I've used Ecco Pro for more than 10 years and occassional drop back in to see what its status is. I really like having an overview of external links collected in one community place. Wikipedia should serve this kind of role as a hub for people who are trying to locate information. That's the advantage of Wikipedia over web searches. If this had been here last time I dropped in on the status of Ecco Pro, it would have saved me hours of trying to figure out the informal structure of the Ecoo community.
As for the notability of Ecco Pro, I would give it very high marks. It is an extraordinary program with a noteworthy following more than ten years after it was released as freeware.
Ernie Beffel 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(September 2009 PROD)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The Proposed Deletion was declined

For the same reasons, I don't think this article should be deleted. Msandland (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the PROD. It was wrongfully placed, presumably though good-faith error. Only articles that have "not previously been proposed for deletion" are eligible for PROD; see WP:PROD. This article was PRODded in November 2008, and is not eligible for another PROD. If the nominator still believes it should be deleted, please go through the WP:AFD procedure. TJRC (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Could the experts at least try to address the issues of notability and excessive, inappropriate external links right in the main body of article? That one blog entry from salon is pretty much the only remote mention by a reliable source I can find. It's not enough to pass the usual guidelines for notability WP:N, because there's no significant coverage by independent sources.--74.56.234.186 (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


Notability references include: (1) Print copy of PC Magazine selected ECCO Professional for their Best of 93 issue and in their May 17, 1994, issue awarded ECCO their Editor’s Choice. (2) EccoPro is the Cover of Dec 1994 PC Laptop Magazine named ECCO Professional the Top Software Application of the Year. (3) international recognition of notability, Guardian hard copy news article http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/26/comment.guardianweeklytechnologysection# (3) More hard news articles http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_June_20/ai_17093574/ (4) etc. more news articles eg., March 11, 1997 - NetManage's ECCO(R) Pro Provides Support for Microsoft Exchange 5.0, PRnewswire, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19193810.html. (5) 25,900 Google results for "EccoPro -wiki".YSWT (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are you still going on about this? The PROD was removed almost a month ago. TJRC (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
@TJRC, you'd think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YSWT (talk • contribs) 06:10, October 23, 2009
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 2009 cleanup attempts

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

Nope, I have totally cleaned this article out. Pricing information like "SRP $69; sold direct by netManage for $19.95" (yes, strangely enough this is also read outside of the US!) is plain advertising, and texts like 'and is available free at the EccoPro Users' Group website', excessive linking to yahoo groups, inline linking of pages which should be internal links, pointing to more information etc. etc. etc. do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Please have a good read through our policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop vandalizing this article. The SRP $69 ... is HISTORIC PRICING INFO. the program has not been sold since 1997 was released for FREE and is available for FREE on the official usergroup website. so (A) it is not advertising, it is important historic information about the software-- how much it cost when it was released in 1996, etc. Please read our policies and guidlines. but more important PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY EDITS. Vandalizing articles is not helpful. if you have any specific guideline in mind, please let's talk about it. YSWT (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Even though this was made clear to you Beetstra, you continue to remove the info and the references to it, (as well as other references material, etc.) since you are 100% ignorant on the subject of this article, your 'play' with the material is neither helpful nor appropriate. What may or may not seem 'relevant' to someone 100% ignorant of a subject is not a proper basis for making editorial decisions. You should work on the self control to contribute on subjects you have first invested the effort to research.!!!! YSWT (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
note: happy to discuss any issue, and maybe you can point out something missed. With equal import, maybe you also need to sit down with the guidelines again. "Exceptions (i.e. sites that can be both references and External Links) include an official site of the article's subject, or a domain specifically devoted to the article's subject which contains multiple subpages". The external sites listed are direct references eg., that a small fix can allow linking directly to file, and to devoted subject sites of multiple pages. The EXPRESS reference rule allows BOTH reference (in-line) and External Link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YSWT (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit this article further, as I have a long-past relationship with Netmanage that still makes me feel a bit WP:COI about touching this, other than the purely procedural edits I've previously made. I will say:
  • This article is a mess and I agree that User:Beetstra's edits are substantial improvements. not enough, but steps in the right direction.
  • Edits are not vandalism, and unfounded accusations of vandalism as made by YSWT violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.
  • Pimping a free site is just outside the scope of Wikipedia as pimping a commercial site. TJRC (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC), out.

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

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

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

No you are wrong. Please become familiar with the link policies of this wiki. The official user group is appropriate for IN LINE LINKING. YSWT (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I am, don't worry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

* also note: Does not seem you are 'independent'. Seems you have an agenda. You didn't read article and 'speed' cut the price thinking it was a 'sales pitch' or an advertisement. You stated that explicitly. Ok, we all make mistakes, but- Instead of admitting that you made a mistake-- you've tried to 'prove' how right you are, and have made up other excuses to show that 'you were right'. It is beyond ridiculous for you to delete the historic product pricing on the ground it was listed in Dollars, and non-Americans read the wiki. Worse, instead of trying to improve the article and helping to find references for those statements that need citations, you 'speed' edited out the citations which were included to support the article's assertions.
Beetstra this article has been worked on by a LOT of people over a long time. If you want to help IMPROVE it, fantastic. but that is not what you're doing-->
1. Nothing intended personally or as insult but am not sure you have a full concept of what an encyclopedia is. Citing sources for the statements contained in the text is not "Pimping" other websites. If the text says JOE X is now an attorney in XXX city, reference to website to establish that fact is a REFERENCE, not a PIMP for that attorney. The price in 1997 is a reference, not a sales pitch. By removing ALL those REFERENCES you're not saving the wiki from 'pimping', your gutting the encyclopedia by removing the citations to the source of the statements contained.
2. "the pricing information is unreferenced, America centered. And I do not believe it is thát important". Should not delete unreferenced material, should mark it for reference. You want to delete historic pricing because is 'america centered'. Are you serious ?
3. Removing notability references and then complaining about notability is article vandalism. If you won't admit that is what happened then you're not being clear headed or unbiased. And, Yes, just because a product exists does not make it notable. But if it was the world's #1 selling PIM, and if it has been been the subject of print articles in newspapers, etc., then the subject is notable. Did you not see the print article references ? Do you think maybe an encyclopedia should only carry articles on 'current events' and what was the #1 software 15 years ago is 'history' and not notable today ?? Ie., you think 'history' has no place in an encyclopedia ?
4. Asking someone to politely stop vandalizing is 'uncivil' but removing 8 references to notability and then seeking article deletion for non-notabilty is 'civil'? With no discussion YOU decide that historic pricing is 'america centered' and therefore YOU decide it can't be in the article ? An article worked on by a multitude of editors for YEARS. ?? Again, are you serious ??
5. Essentially now all you did was to go through and delete references in the article. That's not vandalism ? For example.. the statement that some feature can be enabled with a FIX. WHAT IS YOUR REFERENCE FOR STATING THAT ?? Since YOU removed the reference there is none. In fact, you left the article without reference to all kinds of statements. That is not helpful. Am going to go through and try to fix the damage when have time.
6. You seem to be only a DESTRUCTIVE agent. looking to destroy. If there aren't reference for the pricing why don't you spend some time on the web and SEE IF YOU CAN FIND SOME. That would be helpful. But then again, that would take more effort than removing the references from an article and marking it as 'lacking references'. YSWT (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
1. It is nothing personal. But you are not citing, have you actually read WP:CITE and WP:RS? Saying 'it can be downloaded here' is not referencing, saying 'it can be downloaded here[1] is also not referencing, you need índependent sources! --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
perhaps you are confusing notibility sources with reference sources. Additionally the product is by Netmanage, so references to product features etc., can be from Netmanage. Also reference from 3rd party info sources is 100% proper and helpful when citing features, fact, etc. Just reciting fact without reference is not helpful here. Would be helpful if you'd re-insert the mass of references you deleted. Thanks! YSWT (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not, see WP:RS, the homepage of a company is not a reference for their work. Maybe a specific page on their webpage might do, but it is certainly better to find an independent source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
2. No, the pricing is not encyclopeadic. Nowhere. On any article. Or it must be something that is really specifically notable or controversial. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
What basis do you have for saying that ? How much something cost and when is significant. Moreover, notability (which is not an issue with historic pricing) is not an issue for content. If the content is topical and referenced it is appropriate. Editing articles on subject you know nothing about is not so helpful-- other than it was helpful to remove spam links which were inserted. That is helpful and doesn't require knowledge of the subject. But a good article is not going to result from edits by ignorant contributors. I would make a mess of an article on a subject I was ignorant on, why do you think you're different ? YSWT (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
See other articles. And please take care with personal attacks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
3. I did not remove any notability references. As there are none. All the links to company websites and forums are not, I repeat, not proper sources. None of them are independent. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Your lack of candor suggests lack of objectivity on your part. At any rate, despite your attempts to the contrary, notability is no longer an issue with this article. Or are you not willing to acknowledge even that ? YSWT (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
... Well, see the comments by Johnuniq below. The independent references hardly establish notability. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
4. I have not sought for deletion (though I thought about it shortly this morning). Yes, what we are doing here is not vandalising. And again, that is not why I deleted the pricing information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
At least you admit that. You deleted all sorts of references, including reference supporting statement that "Perez has returned to law practice as a criminal defense attorney in Bellevue, Washington.". You even de-linked the netmanage internal wiki reference. Have no idea what you motives are but delinking internal wiki links, and culling essentally all of an articles external references is article vandalism. YSWT (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Those are, again, not references that establish notability. Yes, I saw that statement 'Perez has returned to law practice as a criminal defense attorney in Bellevue, Washington.' .. I wonder what that does in this article, that does not tell anything about the software.
5. No, it is not, and I did not. Wow, we have already 3 points here saying the same, you do not have independent sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Oh, 4. I am not destroying, you're not independently referencing data. The way you write it, it reads as an advertisement. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
First, I didn't write the article. Second a valid reference *could* be written with POV that should best be re-writeen without POV. That is legit. It is not legit to remove the information and the reference to it. YSWT (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
And I am not the first to consider that the article is not notable, I am not the first to note that the tone of the article is inappropriate, etc. etc. And it is certainly legit if the information should not be here in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Now please, the only place where the yahoo groups may be having a good place is in the external links section .. and even there. Please read the guidelines, read the external links guideline, and read 'what wikipedia is not' and what wikipedia is. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Try to understand. While the group *as a group* may be appropriate link, actual contents of the forum may be appropriate *reference* for assertions such as the number of members active in the user group, for assertions about what users say about the software, etc. Let's say the article asserts a relevant fact, 'there are 1000+ members of the programs new user support group', that fact needs a reference. The Yahoo page listing the active members for the group provides reference for the stated assertion. YSWT (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
No, anyone can say anything on a forum, a forum is never a reliable source, and the number of active members in the user group does hardly say anything about the software. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
@Beetstra, this is more example of the problem with you trying to edit material you are totally ignorant about. Link to a Yahoo page which shows the number of members of a group (and its start date, and # of posts) is a credible reference for all of those facts. Moreover, part of the history/story of Ecco relates to user reactions and feelings about the program. User feelings and reactions expressed in forums is a proper reference for that. Now, the article should report FACTS and should not be a 'research' project, so the 'feelings/reactions' should be no more than a sentence or sentence fragment in the article. But the point is topical especially on software with a 'cult' following and it needs a reference. Keep in mind, not attempting to use form to establish notability, but instead to reference other issue. Or, for example, if user in form posts a reference showing a particular fix or application, reference to that fix is appropriate to that post in a forum. More important, since the forum in official home of the program/fee extensions the *reference* to capabilities, formats, etc., will be to the forum, just as other links would be to microsoft, etc.YSWT (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Misc

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


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

  • Reference to SP2 breaking install, mentions alternate solution that I believe is only available at Compusol and after payment of a small fee. This represents a substantial barrier to entry by users who would like to do a test drive. We have a “vital” interest in keeping the product and unique features available to new users, because while Ecco may be showing its age, some people are leaving the ranks and new blood .would be good. While Ecco is doomed in the long-term, its unique abilities need to be on display for as long as possible so that we can hope for the development of a supported product with the same power
  • Totally FREE SP2 and Vista EZ install solution is available at http:Forums.EccoMagic.com (*ABSOLUTELY NO MEMBERSHIP FEE*!!)
  • FREE extension available at the 'new' Ecco_Pro forum even allows running exclusively from USB...

Additional Note from an Anonymous User:

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


Need:

  • list of support sites (usually at the bottom of the page,
  • a graphic of outline with columns with some data – possibly Will Ussery’s GTD template since that is a hot topic.
  • A simple high level explanation of columns and the power they give
  • a list of common problems and references or info on solution (reference compusol initially?, then maybe bring in here further down the road?)
  • List of which Palm and Treo devices can be synchronized and limitations. Do some of their recent devices run the Microsoft flavour of PDA OS (and are therefore not compatible with Ecco?)
  • stay compliant with Wikipedia formatting "standards".
  • when we start to have subsections to deal with specific subtopics (some listed below) use format like what is used throughout Wikipedia. Would include automatic generation of table of contents etc.
  • Open Source discussion
  • Utilities in Yahoo library with some description (ideally by topic)
  • Utilities such as EccoHelpers, Ivitar software such as VB toolkit etc,
  • History of product. Introduced in, development stopped in ...
  • Open Source discussion, respectful of Netmanage.


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

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

this article reads like an advertisement

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

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

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

Yes, the article reads rather too much like an advertisement and is unencyclopedic in several ways. I don't have time to fix it, nor interest in the topic, but am registering my thought here in order to begin to allow facilitate a discussion and consensus among those WP editors who do care to work on this. N2e (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with N2e. The page looks like an advertisement. It needs to be edited to remove all the POV language. lk (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Read above comments, then looked closely at article text. Found & edited an instance of "even" (POV). Found other exciting words not POV -- they are objective and accurate. The FACTS of Ecco are exciting. The article is 'exciting' not because of POV language but because Ecco itself is vibrant. Interest in comment about what wording, specifically, is POV.
Please sign you entries. Being exciting and "vibrant" is inherently subjective thus POV. This article contravenes the manual of style in many ways, from the inappropriate tone to the tons of external links directly in the text. It would take a lot of work to bring it up to standards, but it seems no one who knows about Ecco Pro wants to do it. I'd clean it up myself, but know nothing about the subject, so my edits would mostly be cutting inappropriate material out, which would translate into a major trim.--Boffob (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Since every non-quantitative adjective is inherently subjective, wonder what you do with other works of art or novels. Have looked carefully at your cited links. Could you more explicitly explain what *specific* external links section you feel is at issue. If you'd quote a few lines of the article text you feel is potentially inappropriate, and cite to specifically how & why (ie. by reference to specific section/subsection of MOS/EL policy, etc) am more than willing to take your lead & constructive suggestions and put in some effort to help 'bring it up to standards'. But important that those 'standards' are objective. 'Inappropriate tone' is subjective POV. As tone is the attitude that an author takes toward the subject, is this the core of your feelings-- eg., the authors were interested in and excited by the subject ? Certainly it's not your POV that 'appropriate' attitude should be of boredom and disinterest ? YSWT —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC).
WP:EL Important point #2: don't put external links in the text, put them in the External links section or as inline cite if it's meant as a footnote and the link is an appropriate reliable source. WP:ELNO point 10: discussion groups and forums are to be avoided. I haven't checked all the links on the page, but I wouldn't be surprised if many require registration (forums and discussion groups...), which is also to be avoided unless it's a cite from a reliable source (or it's the subject of the article's website). Wiki is not a how to guide to support Ecco Pro development and usage. There shouldn't be any "download program/updates/patches/whatever here" links anywhere in the text. Wikipedia is not a promotional site either, thus you shouldn't link to some former developper's law firm page (which has nothing to do with Ecco Pro, WP:ELNO point 13). The purpose of an encyclopedia is only describe what Ecco Pro is or was. There are still tone issues in the "Product functionality" section and onwards (whether the program appears complex or not is in the eye of the beholder, thus unnecessary POV, same goes for the "secret" to devoted following). So please, don't remove the tags if you don't address these specific issues. If you do not wish to fix them, I will eventually remove the inappropriate material.--Boffob (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
@Boffob, Have looked carefully at your input, and think part of issue may be your lack of familiarity with EccoPro as an historic issue, and importance of documenting both the OLD history and the more recent history. Orphanage by the original distribution company AND user based revitalization is all part of the story of the program. It might even provide important historic insight to future researchers on wikipedia. (1) maybe you also need to sit down with the guidelines again. "Exceptions (i.e. sites that can be both references and External Links) include an official site of the article's subject, or a domain specifically devoted to the article's subject which contains multiple subpages". The external sites listed are direct references eg., that a small fix can allow linking directly to file, and to devoted subject sites of multiple pages. The EXPRESS reference rule allows BOTH reference (in-line) and External Link. (2) You apparently have not understood the conceptual import, nor looked closely at the footnotes. See the footnote Note that under WP:External links#What_should_be_linked, a link to a social networking site MAY be included when it is the OFFICIAL website for a business, organization, or person. The Yahoo! forum is the OFFICIAL Ecco Pro user's organization, is FREE, and provides literally thousands of pages of additional information and reference material. If someone wants to learn MORE about, for example, the development of the 'extension' the place to look for MORE INFO is the official website, as linked. By removing a link like that you are cutting off the ability to do additional research on the topic. (3) All the sites are FREE (except historic site "Compusol". If is improper to have link to site that charges registration, tell me, and will remove that singular, non-free site. again, except "Compusol" (which based on your input, may violate rules since it is a pay-to-join/enter site; you tell me) the other sites offer massive FREE RESOURCE for research and learning more about the topic. (4) Links to pages containing more info about patches is 100% proper and important.. the patches are part of the history of the program's development, and links to support the claims about the patches and to provide reference to info about the patches is important. There should be no links to actual software downloads, etc., it should all be reference and research material links as far as I can tell. One link is to a file section which contains an ARCHIVE of research material available for free download-- ie, appropriate link. (5) why is 'link to some former developper's law firm page' any different than link to further bio info about one of the individuals referenced in article ? If someone is researching EccoPro, isn't a link to potential source of additional info helpful ? Just asking!; also, as for "(whether the program appears complex or not is in the eye of the beholder, thus unnecessary POV, same goes for the "secret" to devoted following)." you are saying that description of how something appears is not proper, as appearance is always subjective ? You would delete all articles on art and music, unless they were strictly mathematical records of the subject ?? You have apparently been helpful in past in removing 'spam' and solicitations from the wiki-- very helpful. Vandalizing information sites and removing links documenting modern history is not helpful. Hope you'll consider that. YSWT (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

Need to understand a topic to edit it. Software is free. Some sites attempt to sell the software which is available free at official usergroup (free) site, as permitted by publisher NetManage. If there is a a cult or devoted following to a software that is important information to include in the article. 'excessive details' regarding version history ?? Where did you pull that from ? Other software has very extensive version history. How does it hurt the article ? You're arguing shorter article with less relevant information is better ? YSWT (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Johnuniq; the last major release (4.0) was in 1996, as I recall, so you should not expect to find a whole lot of RSes on the web. Most of that will be in actual paper documents, in particular contemporary magazines covering PC software in that timeframe. I'm not suggesting that you need to hit the library and research it (although that's always a nice thing; I'm doing that on the old "President for One Day" chestnut; just a warning that a lack of online indicia of notability does not equate to a lack of notability.
I'd also suggest keeping the release history; maybe not the pricing. TJRC (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
PS, some potential links for you: [1]. TJRC (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
!TJRC, very nice & helpful. However, seems little chance Johnuniq will take the time to actually read the material and add content to the article with references to the multiple news articles on difference aspects of Ecco Pro that you've helpfully pointed out. YSWT (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Those look like good sources for some more information. Does anyone have access to these? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

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

Johnuniq, could be mistaken but seems like you contributed to deletion of the article's link to the eccowiki.com . In other words, you haven't even taken the time to actually read the material you've been deleting. Moroever, as the official site for the extension specifications, it is the appropriate reference to support the specs for the extension as listed in this article. In any case, since clearly the reference to the wiki is significant and appropriate, you've demonstrated: (1) this article has been vandalized and key and appropriate links have been removed and (2) you have not spend *any* time researching the topic of this article and make edits based on what exactly-- a lengthy experience making edits on other articles the subject of which you are equally ignorant on ? Now clearly, you, or anyone, *could* take the time to research and have knowledge of the subject, and based on that knowledge contribute. YSWT (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
YSWT, you clearly have knowledge of the subject, and you can't provide us with reliable, independent sources. Let me explain, a site like eccowiki.com is user contributed information which has no editorial oversight. Anyone, can write anything there, and when you then write something here sourced to that site, then it does not mean anything. The same goes for the forums, anyone can contribute there, what is written there is absolutely not necessarily true. YSWT, I am not using Wikipedia as a source, it is totally unreliable, just as most of the links that are or were in the article. And the ones which are reliable, don't say too much. I know which sites I looked at, and how I deemed their reliability or the amount of information they offer, and since I do deem them unreliable sources, we can't use them to source information here, and if the information is either from a totally unreliable source, or unsourced, it should go. That is not vandalising, as you keep pressing, it is making sure that there is no original research here, and that the article is neutral. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


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


YSWT: I take it that you do not want to follow my suggestion. Let me try again: it really is a good idea, and I mention it because I appreciate your enthusiasm for Ecco Pro and I would like to help you to do something productive because the material you want to include here is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Wikia are very happy for you to make a wiki with just 10 pages if that's all you want, and you can describe in great detail what Ecco is, its history, how to install, how to use, etc. Detailed images can be included. The only problems are that unregistered users will see adverts, and you cannot use it to host downloads. You will get quite reasonable results in Google searches (if you have useful content), and once it is established I would be happy to add a link to it from here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Johnuniq. You just don't get it. To my view you and those many just like you are the death of wikipedia. You want to contribute but you don't become knowledgeable on the subject before you 'edit' the article. There *are* information sources on Ecco. there is a very nice Wiki. There *was* a link to the wiki. It was removed in the 'helpful' editing recently. Somehow you don't get how the history of Ecco is important. Nowhere in the article was there instructions on how to install or use ecco. More important, how in the world can you-- TOTALLY IGNORANT ON THE TOPIC OF THE ARTICLE-- decide what information is "the material you want to include here is totally inappropriate" or not. There is so much, but let's work with one specific example-- the price history of ecco. How in the world can YOU with NO KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT have any basis to judge whether that information is appropriate or not. As an expert on the subject I know and understand the importance. I wasn't the editor who first included the price information, but I did take the time to find credible, print sourcing to reference the pricing info. However, that doesn't matter to you or Beet-- individuals with NO KNOWLEDGE of the subject - what-so-ever. Your ignorant opinions are that the information is irrelevant or "not appropriate". How would you know ? 04:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Johnuniq, what is irritating to me personally is not only are you ignorant on the subject you 'force' your editorial choices on, but you treat those with knowledge on the subject with condescension. You suggest to me that I should start a wiki and 'you' will add a link to it. Aside from the absurdity that you repeatedly removed the link to just such a wiki, Why couldn't I (or anyone) add a link themselves. Why do they need you to do it or your approval for it ? Did you intend the condescension or just mimic it from the tone you've seen others use at wikipedia ? (The history and story of ecco is an amazing and interesting one. Why would you deprive students, others, around the world of knowledge of it ? ) Oh, and don't even try to play the 'no reference' bit. If you want to help an article -- research and add references. And, the website of a the law office of some person, is darn good reference that the person is an attorney (certainly in an article that is not about that person). Someone (not me) put effort into finding & adding the reference. Why on earth would you delete it ??? [just another example]. 84.109.107.68 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Since this is Wikipedia, it is necessary to follow Wikipedia's procedures. The old discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/MagicView makes it clear that those procedures are not universally understood. If anyone wants to ask a question, please start a new section. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, 84.109.107.68. Lets say we are ignorant on the subject. Then there is a lot of information in this subject, which we read (lets take the old version, the one with all the inline external links/or so called 'references'). How do we know that the statements are true, we look at the references. Following those references, we see that we can not assert that the information that we read here is true. The source that is used to write something is not a suitable source. As most of the information that was linked is self-published (no, not by you, but by the subject that you are writing about), we can't trust it is true, there is no oversight. Same for the forums, anyone can write anything on a forum, and they are unreadable. So they do not help you further in referencing an article. We may be ignorant on the subject, but this article is hence not making us less ignorant.
We are not depriving anyone the story, but it needs to be reliably referenced to independent sources. And there are none. Why am I not writing about my amazing life. Because I can't source it. So how about Ecco Pro? Are there other sources you can use to actually attribute what is written here to? Sources that are not user written, that are not self-published, but written by third parties? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
software publisher's website is generally the appropriate reference for an article on software. see eg., microsoft software articles, " ^ a b c "Windows 7 system requirements". Microsoft. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/system-requirements", "Windows 7 Release Candidate Customer Preview Program. Microsoft. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/download.aspx", etc. the software publisher's website is especially appropriate reference for the software technicals. on this particular topic, can be some confusion for those not familiar with the subject, for example, the 'ecco wiki' as actually the official page for the ecco extension (and thus appropriate for specs, eg., 'facts', about the extension), and ecco_pro forum is homepage for download of official/licensed software itself, etc., similarly, the respective websites of those interfaces/extensions referenced are the appropriate reference for those respective technical specs. etc. YSWT (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

My own suggestion is to start with a version prior to the massive cuts from Beetstra and one other 'editor' (both have total ignorance on the article's topic) and fix from there. I just don't the have time to do it, and any changes seem to get 'bullied' out by a couple of 'persistent' guys/gals that know nothing about the subject but take deep interest in making edits none-the less. [2] YSWT (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That is not under discussion here, we are discussing if these links are suitable external links, the rest of the document is under discussion in talkposts above. There the question is if they are suitable references, which is a different ballpark. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style

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

I undid what was an unconstructive edit restoring unencyclopedic content.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you were reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Some issues:

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

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

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

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

1. "devoted following" several print articles mention this as well as being raised by couple of books. Ecco software was 'terminated' by Netmanage in 1990s. The 'story' of Ecco is that it continued to live, because of the user bases' refusal to leave or lack of replacement, and user to user support network which was created. I have no personal love for the 'devoted following' language, but the underlying information of the 'story' seems interesting, informative, and important to the article. There are currently several free Ecco user to user support groups, and at current per documentation on those user sites, several thousand active members/ecco users. Better way to convey info, am not sure, but one possibility.
2. Part of the failure of ecco software, discussed in several print articles, was that "known to seem at first to be complex" but as discussed in those articles and in blogs/forums "users write that once mastered ... " The incredible difficulty in first using ecco is part of the story of ecco-- why it failed. (ie., officially based on other's reports of the product/product story). The devotion-- storys in compuworld, etc., on users who won't give up their ecco software even years after been discontinued... is also important part of the story.
3. The revitalization subject of print articles, news articles, book subject, is important part of story also. users taking object code and adding modern functionality to software.
4. The OFFICIAL release of the software-- FOR FREE-- and the availability of the authorized official released FOR FREE version and site is important and proper. "Compusol" is a warez site distributing without license bootleg versions of the sofware FOR PAY TO DOWNLOAD FEE. Since the software, and the modern extension are all FREE... replacing the official FREE distribution link with the pay-to-download warez 'compusol' link is... not so helpful and violates the wiki policies.
5. as for 'The prices must be removed'. The historic pricing is important to understand and put in context the failure of the product. Since the product was released by Netmanage for free, the historic pricing has no economic interest... it is historic.
6. The attempts to replace ecco, to my own view are worthy to keep, and the 'story' of ecco is that the dead program still has users and development because there is no replacement. Comparing the featureset of 'replacements' which have been developed puts the story in context. Obviously should not start going into detail about the technical comparison of replacements, but at least a reference link so those interested can go look and compare as to what modern replacements of the same concepts looks like from technical aspect.


hope anon at 70.80.234.196 will discuss here. Please do not remove the official and free product distribution site link and replace it with the 'compusol' warez pay-to-download unlicensed copies of the software. Can see no legitimate purpose for such action, clearly violates the wiki policies and guidelines. 'Charlie1945' owns the compusol site and it makes sense from his own self interest standpoint (he makes money for each user fed to his pay-to-view site) to replace the official distribution of the FREE software with a link to the warez site.
YSWT (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


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

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


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


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

March 2010

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

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

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

I refactored your comment to remove the indent. Replies should be indented. I also toned-down the heading.
Would both parties please stop using excited language in edit summaries. Warez implies illegality, and suggesting that an editor is involved with warez could be interpreted as a personal attack. I'm not sure of the applicable policy, but I can assure everyone that any warez links are completely eradicated from Wikipedia on detection (as are links to any content, such as a video, where the external content is probably a breach of copyright). So, if anyone has evidence that a link is to a warez site, you simply need to post a neutrally-worded and brief explanation with links to evidence showing that some item at a linked site is (probably) a breach of copyright. There should be no need to mention another editor in such a statement. I have not studied the above comments at this stage, but I suspect that evidence in this case will be hard to evaluate: if someone wants to make a statement regarding a link, please also include your opinion about the strength of the evidence. When I have time, I will probably offer some other opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Compusol is a warez site, charging for distributing 'bootleg' software. EccoProMember seems to be also Charlie1945. Their combined contributions are just attempts to add links to 'compusol'. The Ecco_Pro (notice underline) user group is official distribution site for eccoPro program and extension. Both are OFFICIAL and FREE. By contract, if you pay the fee for access, you can download from compusol site all kinds of 'unofficial' software downloads, (copyright and written not by 'compusol'). Here is sample link from compusol site http://www.compusol.org/ecco/pub/EccoPro64.zip . LINKS TO SITES REQUIRING PAYMENT FOR ACCESS SUCH AS COMPUSOL ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS WIKI. (Links to WAREZ sites such as compusol are also not appropriate.). Links to OFFICIAL sites such as ecco_pro forum and eccowiki (official extension documentation) are appropriate and helpful.
Years ago someone suggested to me adding the compusol site, and based on mis-information about the site I was the editor who originally added a link to compusol a few years ago. Other editors in time complained, and after a little investigation it became clear consensus that link was not appropriate. Charlie1945 has used multiple attempts to re-insert his paid site links. That just does not help this article.
If relevant for background eccopro (no _) was once legit user group, but few years ago was taken over by 'Charlie1945' and now used to attempt to feed unaware users to his pay-to-access site. YSWT (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to add, I use my same ID here as everywhere, and as an eccopro expert, freely lend my help to developments by multiple authors both commercial and free. I did not start this wiki article, but am proud to have contributed to it, just as did not start the eccowiki, etc., but have been asked, and have been proud to make contributions. Spend a few minutes looking at eccowiki.com and becomes clear is legit, free, and community based. YSWT (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If what you say is correct, I can understand your frustration. However, you must realize that when communicating with uninvolved editors what counts are facts. It would be desirable to first focus on the "warez" claim, and any talk about users, or claims about what is appropriate, are simply not currently relevant.
I see these claims: There is a fee [$10 per year] to download software from Compusol; the downloads are unofficial and are not written by Compusol. Ecco_Pro is an official distribution site, and is free.
Even if proven, that is not sufficient to allow a conclusion of "warez". It appears that Compusol is a company with a U.S. address, and frankly it does not seem likely that they would distribute warez: if they were, the copyright holder should be able to easily restrain the practice (and if there is no copyright holder, it is not warez). My suggestion would be to work out clearly what is claimed, and decide if the claim is really supportable. Perhaps the situation does not really involve illegal copyright violations, but might be interpreted as an ethical problem. In that case, you really must not use the term "warez" which is defined as an illegal act (I say "must not" because of WP:NPA).
Am not the 'warez' police but the site is a real life 'ecco' warez site. Pay to enter and you can download software from Microsoft, Netmanage, (see this link mid way down: http://www.compusol.org/ecco/ ), pay compusol and get "EccoPro ADD-ONs CCPro, Catalyst Tools, Forms and Reporter" even "the EccoPro Version 3.01 - Intellilink 3.1.1 Combo" There is no 'compusol' software, only 'installer' installing other's copyrighted software (including microsoft's) on your computer.YSWT (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not see any way editors here can or should arbitrate regarding a claim of an ethical breach. As I indicated in previous comments above (October 2009), the current article contains inappropriate language, and I suspect that the best strategy from Wikipedia's point of view would be to severely trim this article and provide one link to each of the competing sites without any editorial regarding which is superior. In particular, the current article looks as if it is a substitute for an official site (because no such site exists), and that is definitely not an appropriate use of Wikipedia.
1. There is an official site, eccowiki. I cannot agree with you that link should be added to pay-to-access site. This seems clearly prohibited. Also, just because some crazy guy tries to plug his pay-to-access ecco warez site, does not make the article a 'self help' guide. There is not a 'how to' eccowiki. There is a user group and official software distribution site. The historic story of ecco is pretty cool (at least to me and some others). The historic story of ecco, as published by credible sources (as is state of article now), with referenced support for technical claims of software, seems helpful, informative.
2. Have invested a lot of effort to remove inappropriate and unsupported language. Original article sounded like a late nite advert for success in life tapes or something. If there is still language that seems "inappropraite" helpful to look at and revise. Offer my technical expertise with ecco... point to the most blatent 'inappropriate' language and let's see if we can improve the article. YSWT (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If anyone wants to reply, please start by stating what you claim (e.g. "X is warez"), then provide reasoning to support that claim without referring to anything else. If you want to make a second point, start with a claim and then provide reasoning for that claim. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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

Thank you for your help!


The compusol links to a pay-to-access site are clearly spam. The removal of the link to the official and free distribution site is vandalism to the article. The attempt to 'recruit' editors to support the efforts is a serious violation of wiki policy.
Since you co-editor is from the compusol site, there is very clear conflict of interest issue as well.


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


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


stuff inserted by compusol guy:

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

See refactored content below.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


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” user group established in 2007 at a time the original user group and CompuSol had the official NetManage download available per zip file and per FTP link to NetManage, see [[4]] and [[5]]. See also the license agreement discussion between CompuSol and NetManage of April 2004 [[6]]. NetManage allowed CompuSol to distribute a free zipped version of their original installation dated 8/27/2002. On 5/11/2005 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 [[7]]. 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 [[8]] click cancel at password prompt, and [[9]]).
Most of the history referenced here is based on pages sampled by CompuSol in the years 2000 to 2005 [[10]], the ’93 press release [[11]], the Arabesque Vision [[12]], Ecco History by Tom Hoots [[13]], and why Ecco failed (EccoPro as a business case) by Chris Thompson [[14]]. 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 [[15]] and [[16]].
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 [[17]]. In 2007 the fresh owner/moderator of a competing Yahoo Tech support group “ecco_pro” [[18]] 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 commercial links are allowed as in the case with the commercial site [[19]] which hosts Ecco related trial software to be paid for after 90 days, so should be the EccoPro member supported site at CompuSol [[20]] which was never 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 [[21]] to make the installation compatible with webOS and the new Palm Pre by using MotionApps Classic V2 emulator(see [[22]]. 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 [[23]] CompuSol will not and cannot charge for any software downloads or multiple distributions thereafter (see also the readme.txt [[24]] included with every free download). CompuSol charges a low yearly $10.00 membership fee for software support which does not cover any new software developing costs.
Additional External References to EccoPro and CompuSol (please note the time line of events)

[[[25]] Sync2it] [[[26]] friendfeed.com] [[[27]] EccoMagic Forum] [[[28]] XMarks] [[[29]] gmane.org] [[[30]] Wordyard] [[[31]] portableapps, see using ECCO on USB Drive] [[[32]] osdir.com, ECCO under wine under Linux] [[[33]] CompuLegal.eu] [[[34]] freemind.sourceforge] [[[35]] Brighthand] [[[36]] DarwinCentral] [[[37]] The conglomerate] [[[38]] AllPM.com] [[[39]] Donationcoder] [[[40]] Hyperorg.com] [[[41]] Outlinersoftware] [[[42]] The Guardian, London] [[[43]] Project Management News] [[[44]] Personal Information Managers]

EccoProMember (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

refactored content of above post
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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" user group established in 2007 at a time the original user group and CompuSol had the official NetManage download available per zip file and per FTP link to NetManage, see [10] and [11]. See also the license agreement discussion between CompuSol and NetManage of April 2004 [12]. NetManage allowed CompuSol to distribute a free zipped version of their original installation dated 8/27/2002. On 5/11/2005 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 [13]. 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 [14] click cancel at password prompt, and [15]).

Most of the history referenced here is based on pages sampled by CompuSol in the years 2000 to 2005 , Arabesque Facts [16], the '93 press release [17], the Arabesque Vision [18], Ecco History by Tom Hoots [19], and why Ecco failed (EccoPro as a business case) by Chris Thompson [20]. 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 [21] and [22].

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 [23]. In 2007 the fresh owner/moderator of a competing Yahoo Tech support group "ecco_pro" [24] 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 commercial links are allowed as in the case with the commercial site [25] which hosts Ecco related trial software to be paid for after 90 days, so should be the EccoPro member supported site at CompuSol [26] which was never 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 [27] to make the installation compatible with webOS and the new Palm Pre by using MotionApps Classic V2 emulator(see [28]. 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 [29] CompuSol will not and cannot charge for any software downloads or multiple distributions thereafter (see also the readme.txt [30] included with every free download). CompuSol charges a low yearly $10.00 membership fee for software support which does not cover any new software developing costs.

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

Above is the text posted by EccoProMember from the previous section, refactored so the links are clickable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the content:
  • Where it is now downloadable, which downloadable version is legal or illegal or whatever is not encyclopedic (unless there are notable legal cases regarding this). The text was riddled with 'now available here', 'get the update there', that is not the task of Wikipedia.
  • How much an 'object' costs is not encyclopedic, except if that is a notable (which means that independent sources would have
  • We are no a howto install guide, a whereto get-it guide, a price-list, or a whatever guide. Stick to the encyclopedic facts.
  • A lot of editors here have, to different extends, a conflict of interest with certain parts of the story, and Wikipedia is not the place to fight over which is the official site, the official forum and the unofficial but new forum, which forum has the most members, which forum has the most EccoPro followers.
  • Inline linking of the forums is not according our policies and guidelines, it is discouraged.
  • There is no consensus here on which forum(s) should be included, and whether they should be included.
Read the policies and guidelines, and don't wikilawyer your way out with 'but Article X has that as well', 'but the guideline does not say that X is wrong, it only says that Y is good', or 'but we now have # editors trying to include it, so it must have consensus'. Here is the place to get consensus on inclusion, and even if one of you agrees with it, if there is no consensus here, I'd suggest reverting unexplained and/or undiscussed edits and establish consensus here first). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure wish you would do that.YSWT (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to warez claims

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

Ecco software is not public domain. It is not GPL. It is licensed software distributed (officially) for free. Charging $10 to distribute someone else's software is both a legal and ethical issue. @Johnuniq, the site advertises distribution of other's licensed software for $10. You don't see that as evidence of warez ?YSWT (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There are no links to downloads anywhere in the document anymore. Only references to information. Substantiate where the article says 'download here' where the link is to an illegal site. If a site is doing that, again, report it, but here is not the place to play that game. You are totally right, we should not link directly to warez sites, but that does not mean that we should link to other download sites. I can agree to an 'all go', I am not agreeing to a 'mine is legal, so mine should be there'. You should know by know what we are and what not (see also my other posts of the last couple of minutes). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Same 2 editors, same spam to compusol

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

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


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

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

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)

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

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)

Please only make contested changes after establishing consensus

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)

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


Recent edits really vandalizing this article

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)

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)
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)


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)
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)
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)
"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)

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)

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)


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)

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

Concern over attempts hide that software is free and still actively developed

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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)

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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)


Hostility & Hidden Promotion of 'Compusol' site

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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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

Still waiting for discussion and sources .. ?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
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)

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

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Request for Beetstra to Mediate instead of reverting other editors

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)

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)
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)).
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)
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)
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)


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)
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)
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)
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.

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

: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)

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)
The eccotools.com board contains extensive list freeware/shareware extensions. More relevant than DMoz ? THI (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
  1. ^ download
  2. ^ http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/files/%2A%2AEcco%20Pro%20v.%204.01%2A%2A/
  3. ^ http://more.eccomagic.com
  4. ^ http://coolthingoftheday.blogspot.com/2005/06/ecco-pro-free-download.html
  5. ^ http://jkontherun.com/2004/11/18/memory_lane_ecc/
  6. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco/netmanage.html
  7. ^ http://forums.eccomagic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168845948/1
  8. ^ http://www.compusol.org/cgi-bin/ecprwcki/ksepw.pl
  9. ^ http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@openoffice.org/msg05232.html
  10. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco/arabesquefacts.html
  11. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco/93pressrelease.html
  12. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco/arabesquevision.html
  13. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco/eccohistory.html
  14. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco/eccocase.html
  15. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco/ecco93.pdf
  16. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco/pcmecco.pdf
  17. ^ http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/eccopro/join
  18. ^ http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/join
  19. ^ http://eccomv.com
  20. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco
  21. ^ http://www.motionapps.com/classic/overview/
  22. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco/hotsync.html
  23. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco/netmanage.html
  24. ^ http://www.compusol.org/ecco/readme.txt
  25. ^ http://www.sync2it.com/mobile/m_details.php?b=14161518201d1b20
  26. ^ http://friendfeed.com/enkerli/6b603dd9/ecco-pro-still-alive-at-compusol
  27. ^ http://forums.eccomagic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168845948/1
  28. ^ http://www.xmarks.com/site/supportweb.netmanage.com/ecco/
  29. ^ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.windows.eccopro/month=20050401/page=1
  30. ^ http://www.wordyard.com/2007/09/04/ecco-pro/
  31. ^ http://portableapps.com/node/5137
  32. ^ http://osdir.com/ml/windows.eccopro/2004-07/msg00093.html
  33. ^ http://www.compulegal.eu/files/timeman.htm
  34. ^ http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Essays
  35. ^ http://forum.brighthand.com/showthread.php?t=250108
  36. ^ http://forum.darwincentral.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=20011
  37. ^ http://www.theconglomerate.org/2008/10/on-writing-back.html
  38. ^ http://www.allpm.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=275&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
  39. ^ http://www.donationcoder.com/Reviews/Archive/NoteTakers1/index.php
  40. ^ http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/002956.html
  41. ^ http://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/945/0/list-of-pims
  42. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/askjack/2006/nov/30/opentoalternativestomicros
  43. ^ http://projectmanagementnews.blogspot.com/
  44. ^ http://www.fredshack.com/docs/pim.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecco_Pro/Archive_1&oldid=390183783"