User talk:YSWT

YSWT, in regards to your latest charge, first of all, you are confusing me with another editor; second, you inserted comments into another person's contribution. That's the bad manners I was referring to. You are not generating much goodwill with these persistently combative (and incorrect) comments. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% correct on the vandalism, intended to respond to the frog guy who was doing that. "these persistently combative and incorrect comments." Dude, that's pretty aggressive language. Could be i've missed something. Could you share some example of a 'persistently combative' or a 'persistently incorrect' comment ? Certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for either and would sincerely appreciate your (slightly more specific) input. YSWT (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you apologized for falsely accusing me of vandalism. As for examples of incorrect comments, well, I gave you the link to one incorrect comment just now; the combative part is, I think sufficiently indicated by your use of all-caps, for instance, or your belittling me with your 'dude.' That's not the kind of language the world's foremost authority on a kind of software ought to use. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the submission. Apparently I typed over something in the edit box and the text blamed you for what frog had done. Sincerely apologize. No intent to 'belittle' with the term dude. We I come from calling someone 'dude' is a term of gentle endearment. And as for foremost authority, that's probably true for certain aspects and not for others. More accurate to say that I'm one of the top two living authorities on a kind of software.

This would be an excellent example of combative and incorrect. It's also quite recent. Rklawton (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is your language. Please share a sentence or two of my 'combative' language.

Yes, your article is going to be deleted. It could be deleted now under WP:SNOW. Your edits adding this software to other articles will also be reviewed and possibly removed. Keep in mind that you have been requested to refrain from editing articles in which you have a conflict of interest. This limits you to contributing your suggestions to talk pages. If other editors see merit in your ideas, then they can choose to follow your suggestions. Or not. Lastly, you should be aware that if you attempt to disrupt any of these processes, you may find yourself blocked from editing any part of Wikipedia. So far, your efforts in this matter have not been very encouraging, but if you really are interested in editing an encyclopedia rather than simply promoting your product, I urge you to find a mentor and follow his/her recommendations. It's your call. Rklawton (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2009

Linked above. My comments above were made to advise you of our procedures. I'm not obligated to explain any of this, but I was hoping you might use this information to make optimal choices. Other editors have likely given up because you have already ignored their recommendations. I guess I'm just a bit more optimistic. Rklawton (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decades ago, the first time I did a freefall formation I kept turning left instead of right (as was planned). Each time in the run through it was 'oh, yeah, this needs to be right.' Well, guess which way I turned ? Rigid thinking sets in and we don't even know it. The references for EccoMV are imho credible external references FOR SOFTWARE OF THIS TYPE. The same would not be true likely for many other subjects but JUST LIKE WIKIPEDIA HAS DISTINCT CRITERIA FOR OTHER SUBJECTS, SOFTWARE needs to be judged based on what actually is in the real world. Unless it is incredibly popular and hard to use, no one writes books about software. Being Popular isn't the same as being notable. Many *hugely* notable software is limited to discussion *in the project page of that software*. That's what project pages are for.

if we look at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions we see that "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet." Further, if we look at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_for we see that "some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept". If we examine the full depth of the notability purpose we'll find that "Notability: Wikipedia guidelines on minimal standards of importance exist for *some* types of topics, including biographies of living people, articles about music or musicians, companies and corporations, fictional topics, and articles about web-specific content."

An article about SOFTWARE. it is not about a living person, music, companies, fictional topics or web-specific content. It needs to be judged on criteria appropriate for NOTABLE SOFTWARE, not criteria for other things that are notable. People write books on POPULAR software, not on narrow interest software that may be much more noteworthy.

A consenus to 'delete' should be based on whether the SUBJECT of the article should stand on its own, or be included in another article. It is NOT to delete content. The deletion debate should be about WHEN (OR NOT) AN ARTICLE IS APPROPRIATE TO MERGE WITH ANOTHER.

If you imagine just for the sake of consideration that someone is not trying to scam you, but trying to improve wikipedia. Changing the mindset about articles seems much more significant in the long run than a small article. If wikipedia is a source for knowledge that is an amazing thing. The smaller the level of refinement and detail, the more amazing the creation. "Some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept." Does the software described in the article exist ? Does it actually do what it is spec'd to do (ie. not a hoax), etc. Is it NOTABLE IN ITS FIELD ? these seem to me to be the relevant issues for software. Not google searches. Discussion in technical forums is *the* place many branches of software are discussed. It's only either popular culture software or 'marketed' software issuing press releases, etc. that ends up in google. The honest, non-self promoting software developers are not spamming the net-- and hence no 'buzz'. The CRITERIA for 'notability' needs to match the SUBJECT (as wikipedia guidlines call for). Anyhow, I know that's a lot. I've posted here so you're welcome to digest and discuss if you ever desire in future (not need to be in connection to the EccoMV article). You don't want to use the same folds that worked great for your old chute on a new chute with a different design. SOFTWARE, and SPECIALTY SOFTWARE is different than other subjects. Articles still need to be on Notable subjects, but the CRITERIA to determine what is notable from what is not needs to fit the subject.YSWT (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I had any knowledge about MagicView, I would register my "keep" vote too. Unfortunately, some others have no problem voting "delete" while NOT having any knowledge about a piece of software... -- Dandv (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You don't and shouldn't need knowledge of the program. If you agree that software should be notable based on criteria for software-- then it might be helpful to register that. I would *very* much appreciate if you'd carefully read the Wikipedia guidlines I've cited. If you understand them and agree that the actual guidelines are as I've expressed, would help if you'd make a go of explaining that to to magicview deletion discussion. If you think that maybe I've misunderstood something or taken the guideline out of context, please tell me that. I don't care about the article, but I hate to see wikipedia 'going to the dogs'. Articles *should* be on notable subjects, but you don't determine if a software is notable by looking for books about it or counting results on google. If you are in consensus with that view, please contribute. YSWT (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's exactly how we determine notability (plus journals, etc), and if you don't like it, then leave and start your own wiki. We absolutely do NOT publish original research here. We MUST rely on secondary sources. Lacking these, we have no other recourse, and that's a point you seem to have a very difficult time accepting. Wikipedia has been deemed "going to the dogs" for years by people like you - frustrated that they weren't permitted to forward their own personal agendas or original research. Yet somehow we still keep growing in size, use, and popularity. Rklawton (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, encyclopedia is NOT for original research. Yes, MUST rely on secondary sources. We agree together on this. What we don't agree on is that you want to "determine if a software is notable by looking for books about it or counting results on google", whereas, I want to determine if a software is notable by looking to secondary sources RELEVANT TO the particular subject at issue. I'm not "frustrated that they weren't permitted to forward their own personal agendas or original research" but I do see that there is some issues. I don't regret my own personal financial contributions to wikipedia, (its very cool, even if imperfect), but the institution am associated with has made substantial assistance, and is in process in budgeting for the future. This experience has certainly broadened my view about the current state of the wikipedia, and is very different than I was expecting based on the presentation made institutionally. I expected a courteous community that would arrive after discussion on a consensus for inclusion criteria and then consensus on the merits of the notability references specifically available. That probably just sounds like gibberish to you, but that's ok too. YSWT (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long live craptastic wiki software.

Do not think a WP article adds anything to the advancement of your software. The WP is a public service, providing info about the program, etc., but feel *very* confident, anyone interest in your module would *not* be looking to find it on wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encylopedia where people look up topics they have already identified and want to learn more about.

I often use Wikipedia as a reference, thanks to its useful comparison pages. For example, when I needed a new SSH client, I looked at Wikipedia (Comparison of SSH clients), and when I wanted to sign up for an image hosting service, I looked at List of photo sharing websites#Comparison_of_photo_sharing_websites. Dandv (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope MagicView doesn't share our fate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 16:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just send a press release to localized google or yahoo news. It will be published in google & yahoo news and presto, you've become notable. Yes, that's as stupid as it sounds but there are much deeper group think issues involved. YSWT (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Won't work. Press releases are not considered reliable sources. Rklawton (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News outlets need news to publish. They rely on press releases they are sent. They get the release and publish it as 'their' news. This isn't even a secret. Is someone can't write a decent press release (ie. its unfit to print), for about $100.00 a 'publicist' will write one for you. If it is important to you to have mojomojo get its own page on wikipedia, that is all it takes. I would bet you could make a press release for a module that isn't even available on CPAN and the wikipedia process as working today, will verify your 'external references' and keep your article.YSWT (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We well understand how the media works. And this method won't work. Indeed, there's a good chance that whoever tried it would be blocked for disruption. You certainly are no expert on what it takes to write a successful article, and you never will be so long as you fail to learn from your mistakes. Rklawton (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since likely most *every* news report on software was a reprint from press release issued by the developer/distributor, most *every* software topic approved on the basis of 'news' references was probably approved exactly on this basis. YSWT (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. But feel free to check that out for yourself. Rklawton (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of wikipedia is exciting. Beyond that, do not share your feeling that being listed on WP brings any benefit to the subject. In your personal case the link from your business webpage to articles where you have inserted your content may be beneficial to you in establishing credibility. I don't think that is true for most other situations.

Maybe there are articles on the wiki you can look at to learn about journalism, press releases, and maybe even how the software related media operates. YSWT (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My software has been in use commercially for ten years now, I do occasional contract writing for a couple of publishers, I've edited press releases, and I've had my work published in various IT industry journals. My "business links" are a little something to keep me occupied in retirement. But yeah, I'm always open to learning new things, and I learn considerably faster than you, so thanks for the tips. Rklawton (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life is short. Why not fill it with kindness and courtesy toward others. Statements like "I learn considerably faster than you" might be insulting, hurtful, or thought of as mean spirited by others. Just a tip. YSWT (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that MagicView did not end up in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software/archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 02:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MagicView

I added the AfD to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software, where the bot should pick it up. Hopefully the bot will manage to archive it without problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Ecco_Pro about the linking in Ecco Pro. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding remarks like:

• "... edits on other articles the subject of which you are equally ignorant on ..."
• "... you are "idiots" who are destroying the wikipedia ..."
• "... based on your own, ignorant feelings."
• "... and that is *exactly* what you are doing, vandalizing other's work."

Stop with those personal attacks. You are attacking multiple editors, criticizing their personalities and calling them names. There are now several editors who agree that the information is not properly referenced, that those sites are not suitable as references, and that the language and the tone of the article is inappropriate. Please consider this as a final warning. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting the "idiots" out of context. You are ignorant on this topic. That is not a personal attack and was expressly stated as such. I expressed my own ignorance on topics as well, and said that I would not attempt to edit articles upon which I was ignorant. Just one example: You removed the pricing info. It was 100% properly referenced and relevant material to this article. You initially deleted the material on the grounds that it was listed in US dollars. Now you're attempting to take my language out of context and make threats. It is obvious that you've got issues other than the content of the article. You were repeatedly requested to DISCUSS before making changes. At least multiple different editors-- besides myself have undone your changes and you just keep putting them back. Once I realized that you were totally ignorant on the topic and were 'hell-bent' on proving that you could edit the article, even if multiple others reverted you, I realized that my time is not well spend making contributions to an article that some ignorant person to the topic will based on their whims and feelings feel free to delete. Looking at the recent history of the article it looks like there has been 20 (?) or more back and forth edits-- about half of them yours, none of them mine.YSWT (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On unlikely event anyone actually reads this, here is the comment Beetstra is complaining of:

Don't know either of you, and you could be astrophysicists. For my own POV without intent as any personal comment about you, you are "idiots" who are destroying the wikipedia and in the end will be the end of the wiki. Instead of constructively adding to the article you simply look for something to do, like busy bees. But since you don't know *anything* about the articles' subject you have no idea what information is relevant or not. So you make 100% subject 'feels good' decisions, based on your own, ignorant feelings. And on the subject of the article you are simply ignorant. Not meant in any derogatory way. So, you feel free to delete researched and *referenced* material, such as the historic pricing. You feel free to delete most of the references in the article, am not sure on your logic for that, but am sure you have some. The website of the attorney who once worked on ecco isn't a reference that he became an attorney, it is 'pimping' to use you're own language. And so.. as you and others just like you do your 'work' the level of articles falls. Those who spent time doing actual research and writing see their work vandalized-- and that is *exactly* what you are doing, vandalizing other's work. And that, I think... is the death of the wiki. A source of knowledge open to contribution at first attacks those with knowledge. Then those without knowledge want to feel that they have something to contribute and so chip away at the work crafted.

OK, adding to this:

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ecco Pro, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

This time I really urge you to read our policies, guidelines and some essays, which include the reliable sources guideline, the external links guideline, the spam guideline, the conflict of interest guideline, the no personal attacks policy, the neutral point of view policy, the meatpuppetry part of the sock puppetry policy, Stealth canvassing (part of the behavioral 'canvassing' guideline), the single purpose account essay, and others. Please, read them, and consider your edits here. Consider this a final warning, and the beginning of a second chance. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beetsra, I acknowledge that I am ignorant on thousands of topics. I would not make an effort to edit articles on those topics. I did not create nor author the ecco pro article, although spanning several YEARS I have taken the time to make contributions to to, since it is a topic upon which I am an EXPERT. Not a pretend expert, but a real one. You on the other hand are 100% ignorant of the subject. You have no business editing the article. You cut out the historic price info, (this is just 1 example) because it was in USD. that is crazy. I spent a lot of time to find printed source references for the prices and added them. You deleted that. You de-linked internal references in the article, you deleted much material and references. I could go on. You are ignorant of this subject. That is not a personal insult. What is a personal insult is your 'instruction' to me to read the policy on sock puppetry. That is rude, insulting, and libelous.

What really happened is you got suckered by a real single purpose user with an agenda. He has a business selling essential selling unauthorized copies of the ecco pro software. One problem with his business model is that Netmanage released the program for free and permitted the official Ecco_Pro user group to distribute the software FOR FREE (subject to certain license terms that the user acknowledges netmanage does not support the product). So, to sell software to people they can get for free, seems helpful to shut down all information sources which provide the information that the software is actually available for free. Seems very clear at this point that 'Charile1945' suckered you into joining his efforts. And you've been spending your time and effort doing someone else's "dirty work". Hiding from wikipedia readers facts and available resources. I didn't create the eccowiki, and have contributed only a very minor amount (the wiki involved a tremendous amount of work, and is the official wiki for the eccopro [free] extension. Again, that extension is available at the Ecco_pro forum, again for Free. but all that information is not helpful to someone who wants to CHARGE YOU to distribute to you an unauthorized copy of someone else's software.

Ironically it was myself a few years back that added 'Charlie's site as an external link (for those seeking further info/references on ecco). Eventually other editors complained (rightfully per wikipedia guidelines) that the site was pay-per-view and not an appropriate wiki external link.

At any rate, you insinuation and implication accusing me of sock puppetry is rude, offensive, violates the core rules of our wiki, and fits in perfectly with your vandalism-- some of which others have repaired and some of which you have slowly come around to repair yourself, hopefully because it was done by you through ignorance and not intent.YSWT (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I asked you to read WP:MEAT, as you are asking for help (albeit off-wiki) by others. I am not accusing you of sock puppetry, I have indeed no proof of that. And asking off-wiki is also canvassing. I have not said that what Charlie1945 is doing is correct, their pushing and actions are similar, but since it seems that they are now on a rotating IP (which I start to feel to start tagging as socks, actually), there is not much help in

Yes, I unlinked, again, those links are inappropriate. Yours and Charlies. And you are involved in a handful of the sites that you have been adding, YSWT. And regarding being a SPA, do you know what this list tells me:

• Top 10 domains added by YSWT: groups.yahoo.com (59), forums.eccomagic.com (29), eccomagic.com (12), eccowiki.com (9), eccotools.com (9), ecco.empowers.us (8), eccomv.com (8), more.eccomagic.com (8), eccotools.wiki.sourceforge.net (7), tersesystems.com (7).

My actions are now looked at similarly by several others already, but you are the only one who keeps pushing the same inappropriate sources, and the same inappropriate information. You are right, if Charlie1945 would not have added the other forum (hmm, I have a WP:NPOV-question, I'll have a look) and would not have complained about being reverted, then I maybe would not even have ended up over there. But the information is, again, inappropriate, the article does not assert notability, etc. etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, currently the ecco_pro wiki does not list any links to OFFICIAL nor FREE distribution of the software. Instead, with your assistance, the only link is to an unauthorized PAY FOR ACCESS site. It is clearly in violation of the wikipedia policies, and is something you've put a lot of effort into. Reference materials for the software at sourceforuge, tersesystems, the eccowiki, and the official yahoo group is all free, is reference material, and has nothing to do with me personally beyond my own contributions similar to the contributions made here. The eccomagic forums provides a huge base of reference material (FREE), include DDE reference, manuals, programming examples, etc. What you've done, to date, is to remove reference material to proper, official and free sites, and have it replaced with pay-to-view unauthorized, 'scam' site. You are way out of line in aiding the promotion of a pay-to-view site.

My contributions here are all under my own name,the same name I contribute under everywhere. Ie, even though wiki policy allows me to take a 'fake' name for wiki use here, I have no reason to do so, and have openly contributed here and elsewhere. You on the other hand have assisted bogus editors. Bottom line, based on your actions the current text makes no reference to the proper free reference location, and links to a pay-to-view bogus site. Its kind of important. You've personally contributed to taking a wiki page and turning it into a feeder for a scam pay-to-download-warez site. By removing reference and link to the official authorized distribution site (FREE), you've funneled traffic to the pay-to-access warez. YSWT (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MV inside Ecco5.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I know I have been here before for the same reasons, and I see again things going on which are close to (very slow) edit warring. I have cited the policies and guidelines before to you, and again all information which was deleted as being not notable was included again, linked in an inappropriate way, the article was riddled with links to 'look how good the forum is, you can get it all for free', statements are unreferenced, there were inappropriate external links (as the mentioned sites do not have Wikipedia articles). We are NOT a manual, we are NOT Google, we are NOT a software support, we are NOT .. well, please, READ the manuals, and as you do have a conflict of interest with at least one of the forums, you are NOT going to re-insert that information until you find enough support on the talkpage that they need to be included. Please, find that support, as I asked some months ago. I agree that 'the other side' also seems to be there, but of you I am sure that I sufficiently warned you (though I will leave a not on other editors as well where appropriate). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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!

additionally, the bogus and libelous claims that I run a warez site etc., seems also inappropriate.

Was truly surprised to see you associated with this. 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.

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

especially since you co-editor in all this is clearly a single purpose account, your involvement is surprising.

1. this is a warning to assume good faith. I have no involvement with Compusol, and your insinuations in that direction are inappropriate.

Dirk, I have written you months ago to please stop partake in injecting the compusol links. Yes, you personally did not inject them but is clear that you do not edit this article normally, and you only show up exactly when the ocmpusol links are inserted. "Warning" others repeatedly, etc.

And I have warned you not to partake in inserting the forum links, those are (maybe also) unreliable sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. all links to Compusol are to articles, which are not pay-per-view (at least not for me), they are references for the data. If you can come up with better references, feel free, but however you want to turn it, these articles are more reliable than any post on a forum. Find independent references.

Compusol is a pay to join forum. It is not a credible source. the references WERE to legit and proper sources but were removed and replaced with bogus compusol sources. What can compusol be a source for ?? It is not the software developer, it is not a publication. You have got to be kidding me. Injecting multiple 'sourcing' to same 3rd part site is just a way of injecting spam. If compusol had some product, and you referenced technical specs for that product, legit. but, alas, that is not what happened here.

So, both are not credible .. then both should go. The statements are hence unreferenced. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. you may have noticed that I have removed quite some compusol references and replaced them with the proper references, linking to the original articles.

Yes if careful attention is made to what you do, you care careful to NEVER have added a compusol link, and 'appear' to be editing unrelated to compusol. But in fact, you ONLY have edited this article at the exact same time as compusol, and you have threatened everyone who tried to remove the compusol spam, and you have REPEATEDLY reverted and restored the compusol spam links. You clearly are experienced with wikipedia and are not making 'beginners' mistakes. At first I thought you were unrelated to compusol. At this point the record is clear. You only make edits to this article when compusol spam is inserted, and your edits and threats are directly aimed at supporting the compusol spam.

In October of '09 I had thought this was unintentional on your part. Others can see your page history for my comments at that time. But lightning does not strike twice in the same place. There is now a clear patten. You 'happen' to revisit this article only at exactly the same time the compusol spam insertion starts. You 'happen' to have intertwined edits supporting the compusol links, and you happen to threaten others not to remove the links. I think your game has been exposed, but that is for others do decide.YSWT (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want to see reliable sources .. those forums are not sources, and they are not reliable sources either.

And no, I am not involved in Compusol. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. we are not linking directly to download sites at the moment, not yours, not his. The links are available on the current references, indeed, but that is not the point, we link to the article, not to the download directly.

I don't have a site. am a moderator at the ecco_pro user group which distrubutes for free the original, licensed software, pursuant to a license to distribute and a special user license from the software author. The user group files include original documentation and the official distribution. All is free. You've assisted with replacing all that with links to the compusol pay-to-play site. When you did that in the past, I really thought you just were not aware and it was unintentional. That is clearly not the case now.

OK, not to the forum site you moderate. I don't care who distributes it, it is not worthy of linking. It is not a reference. We are writing an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. if compusol is doing something illegal, then Wikipedia is not the place to settle that

No answer?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Just as that we do not link to downloads on Compusol, we are also not linking to downloads on

Nice try. The bogus links you've added to compusol point to the pay-to-view links. Again, the game is up. I think you'll find you've been exposed.

No, I can read the texts linked without paying. And even references to pay-to-view are fine. There are pay-to-view links on the pages that are linked, but that is something else. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did not say that you were running a Warez site, you are running a free forum for a piece of software. Still no need to link to it.
2. The existence of a forum is not proof that it is an official forum for the software. It is merely an indication. Not saying that you are not running the official forum, but anyone can say that they are running an official forum for a piece of software. We need independent, reliable sources for that. I have asked you that before, you are not able to produce said information. I saw at sometime links to a handful of PC magazine fronts, but none has ever dug up the articles, and referenced them (yes, 'Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance Volume 14 Issue 5, Pages 41 - 47.' is a perfectly valid reference, it allows people to actually dig up a paper version and look up if it is right. Not having a direct link to it is inconvenient, but not necessary; at least compusol included said references to PC magazine, and those are now in the article).

What ? You can download the software from the Ecco_pro forum. You can see, it is the original official, licensed software. You can download the software from your compusol site links. The software is obviously bootleg. If you look at it you see the Netmanage licensing has been removed. You will see also other 'free' once you've paid compusol programs from a range of companies.

Yes, and now come with independent data .. finding the differences is original research. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, removal of your spam link does not require article in newspaper about your spamming our article. Your links are to a bootleg, warez, pay-to-access site. They are wholly inappropriate for this wiki.YSWT (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'your spam link', I don't have a spam link. 'our article', please read WP:OWN. No, you are free to remove the references, as I said elsewhere. But they can NOT be replaced with forum links. The forum may have a place in the external links section, but even that I am not sure about, and I have long back suggested that discussion, but that did not take place. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The pricing information can be of interest, if it is something notable. The big problem is, you don't have a single reference for any of them. That price hence does not mean anything.

That just isn't true. As anyone can see from the original posts, the pricing was fully supported by published articles discussing the product pricing. Am not sure what you or compusol gain from removing pricing, but as can be seen from the history, your original basis for removing the pricing was that it was listed in US dollars and wiki is international.

Then you should have added those references to the price-statements .. but they are not encyclopedic. Windows#Timeline_of_releases does not give prices, those are not encyclopedic. Only if there is something special to it, then it gets mentioned in articles. But well, I explained that before. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the policies and guidelines here. Inline linking to a forum is inappropriate, using the forum as a reliable source for its existence is not enough. We do not have to say 'download this patch here to do that', that is not encyclopedic, discrediting another site without being able to come with something better or more reliable is also not helping. Saying that we should not link to a pay site but insisting to have to link to a forum for the same download is also not appropriate. And then there are slow edit wars going on the page which are almost enough to toss a protection on the page. Get reliable, independent references and use them. You are free to edit the page, but get consensus on the talkpage before including your own site as a direct link, and be very careful with how and where you use it as a reference. If you plan to use it as a reference for its existence, then I will again remove it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you've stated in this paragraph applies to your and compusol's edits of this article. You have again modified without any consensus and have threatened me from reverting. I don't have time to deal with you this now, but, again, hopefully someone else does.YSWT (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does apply to you defending the inline linking of the forum, the 'how to install and where to find the downloads for free' .. all of which is not part of wikipedia. You are free to find better references, to question references that are there, but replacement of Compusol references with forum references is certainly not the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk: You are just making stuff up. You've been caught.

To extend to this, are you only trying to get rid of your opposition by claiming that they are involved, or do you also have real arguments why the pricing should be included, and why the forum is a good reference, and why there are not other references available? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk: again, the game is up. Your editing is only in conjunction with the compusol links. They are clearly not appropriate. The links you removed are appropriate, and include to print media, and all sorts of reference material on the web not related to any forum. Pretending that you are an 'objective' editor and there is just some 'conflict' of different links isn't going to work for you, it think.YSWT (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the links I removed are not appropriate, and I did not include (except in reversion) any of which I have yet to see whether they are less appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Ecco_Pro. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've revered your recent changes on the Ecco Pro articles, Press releases, blogs and newsgroups are not reliable sources and cannot be used to back the sorts of claims you are trying to make. If you can't find reliable sources, don't bother re-adding the content as I or someone else is sure to simply delete it (in line with policy). --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced the official distribution site of continued object code development with link to compusol-- not a news source, not a software developer, a warez pay to download other's software site. You also removed the info that the program is distributed for free at the official distribution site, which you removed. You also removed the DDE technical information and the links to software providers' APIs for the DDE links. You also re-inserted compusol with language such as "formitable" which has no place in a software article, other than an attempt to pimp compusol. Replacing official distribution link with pay-to-access other's software site is not in line with wiki policy. YSWT (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you are inserting links that do not even state what you try to reference here, you are re-inserting external links INSIDE the text, which is against our policies and guidelines, you are using forums as references which are not reliable sources, you are deleting other references which at least DO state what is claimed. You have been told over and over, if you disagree with the references that are there, then at least use references which are better, the forum references are NOT suitable. And for the external links, you were asked to get consensus before insertion on the talkpage, over and over, still, that is not what you did. Have you actually read through our policies and guidelines? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, you've been warned about this repeatedly. You are attempting to hide the actual official distribution and specification information and references for the current development of eccopro. You are doing this in conjunction with insertion of links to compusol which is attempting to sell bootleg copies of eccopro under the false guise that it is the currently developed version. YSWT (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have warned you that you need to properly reference the information, and discuss inclusion. If you can prove (which until now you are not able to do, even though I believe that you are right) that that is an official site for it, etc. etc., then it can be mentioned, and even used as an external link. You continuous re-insertion and pushing of non-encyclopedic information (the pricing info is NOT encyclopedic, ánd you can fill in any number there, as it is impossible to find a reliable source which we can use to verify the info), your constant failure to address questions (can you please prove that it is the official forum), and your constant failure to discuss inclusion of external links (yes, it says there in the external links guideline: "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.", and "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below.", and "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)"/"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors....". The forum and the wiki fail WP:ELNO, except if they are official, but the problem is, you can't prove it is thé official forum, come with a discussion there and/or with proper references). Please stop and start answering questions and discussing, find better references for the compusol references (or help in pruning the info, as then it remains unreferenced; as I said, even if compusol is not the best reference, it is still better than a forum or a wiki), otherwise I will be forced to report you to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Consider this a final warning. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that remarks like "... compusol which is attempting to sell bootleg copies of eccopro under the false guise that it is the currently developed version" sound awfully libel to me. Can you prove that compusol is selling a bootleg (note in note: I actually also asked you that before, but you failed to answer that question as well)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your current tone is very different than your prior. You're acting like you don't know about the situation and are just a disinterested 3rd party. A history of your initial and subsequent edits on the ecco_pro article exactly match the times that compusol links were spammed into the article. Once that was pointed out your edit pattern changed. But you cannot escape the footprints you've already left.

Prove that compusol is selling out of date bootleg software as 'newly developed' compusol softare ? Go to the official distribution site. Download the official licensed version of the 4.01 (1997) version. Install. Notice the copyright notices, license notices, and actual installation (files on machine are checked & appropriate extensions included with on disk install). Then do same with the 'compusol' version and examine what was installed. Copies of most of the files included in the copyrighted-licensed version. Look at file properties, for copyright info, look at INFO in program help, you will see is not compusol software but bootleg of 1997 Netmanage.

The old software (compusol bootleg) has bugs, for example year 2000 bug. For example. Recurring dates don't work. In 1997 was not RTF awareness, etc. so you can't copy or paste RTF, etc. Ie., old version of ecco. Now go to official Ecco_Pro forum and download the free actively developed Ecco_pro software. Looks basically the same but... ah, no year 2000 bug, can copy and paste RTF text, run on USB key, and hundreds of other developments since 1997, now included in the official and, btw, free software. So yes, even someone new to subject can figure this out pretty quickly. (Unless of course the links and info to the official, actively developed, and free distribution of ecco pro is hidden from them, and they are funneled to the compusol, pay-to-download bootleg site.)YSWT (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all original research, it cannot form the basis of an article. Wikipedia is about verification not truth. Either you or someone can provide a reliable source that notes what site is the 'official' site for the software or we simply do not make any mention of such a claim. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, you have been told this already a couple of times, but you insist me being involved. So be it, you are entitled to your conclusion.

No, YSWT, I have over and over asked for reliable sources, and told you that the forum or the wiki is not a reliable source. I have never said that it should not be mentioned, only that it needs a reliable source. I am not saying that compusol is doing the right thing, I only ask for a reliable source that states that, not for original research. You are not able to provide ANY reliable source, you source everything to forums and other (commercial) websites you are involved in, and the links that you give do not attribute what is mentioned on wikipedia. All editors that come in are here fresh (and yes, I have read parts of the forums, I know where they are from, and I think I already mentioned meatpuppetry to you once), while I have asked you, over and over, to find editors here who may be of help. Come with the independent references, YSWT. Thanks already. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And about spamming, please be careful, it is a pot meet kettle situation in your case. You are the one promoting a handful of websites where you are actively involved, so you should be the last to point to other spammers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the world's leading authorities on Ecco Pro and as such am involved in the Ecco_pro forum as a moderator. I don't get paid for it, there is no charge for the software, it is free. I believe that your mention of 'meatpuppetry' implies wrongdoing on my part. You're claiming I'm involved in commercial sites which is exactly opposite of my edits. Your personal attacks are insulting and improper. The only 'meatpuppertry' and commercial site promotion involves the edits inserting the compusol site, and multiple accounts opened to promote it. You've made at least 9 threats against me personally, including your latest threatening to accuse me of vandelism-- something you have clearly been involved with in regards to this article.

It looks like you try to run off contributors so that you can bully your way with inserting compusol links in the article and remove proper links to the active development and distribution site. Many other editors have complained about your edits and actions. You have threatened also many others. YSWT (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist with "i didn't hear that" about the use of a yahoo group as a reference, I'll move to have you topic-banned from the article. you've been told by multiple editors that it's not an acceptable source and if you refuse to hear the community, then the community will act. let me tell you once again - if you are claiming that this is the official site for the software, you need to provide a reliable independent source to back that claim. You have been asked to do so on multiple occasions. As a single purpose account with a very clear conflict of interest you will not be allow to use wikipedia in whatever way please you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least 10 editors other than myself have inserted or re-inserted the reference. I got tired of re-inserting and removing compusol, so I taken to reverting to other editors revision when the links get removed and/or the compusol links show back up. About 3 editors have re-inserted links saying "I came to this page for info, and it was gone so I put it back" or some such thing. About 3 editors have explained the background for those who don't know about the subject and re-inserted the links. At your suggestion I added the links as external links. The user group is a proper link as the distribution site of the software. There is simply no rule on wikipedia that there needs to be 'reliable independent source' for the official download site of software. If there were some issue, eg., you thought some other site was the official site, etc., your attitude would make sense. But since the actively developed Ecco Pro software is only available at the ecco_pro user group, you obviously don't suggest that any other site is official site. And Why is it that you and Beetstra deal in the world of threats ? Why can't you discuss an article with civility ? YSWT (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, all of them are 'new' editors, you have not been able to find established editors, as asked over and over. The remarks "I came to this page for info, and it was gone so I put it back", that is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. And you forget that a good handful of ESTABLISHED editors have removed the links.--Dirk Beetstra

First of all, that's not true. Some of the editors are not members of wikipedia but some of them are. You may feel that is not a legit purpose, and express it on the talk page, but your failure to respect the edits of of an editor-- even they are not a wikipedia member, is off kilter. Moreover, it now turns out that if the editor is a member, you threaten them and ask them not to add text without your permission. Dude, get a life.YSWT (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have asked for discussion, and when that discussion is not coming to an end yet, we are still not having consensus for inclusion. Thát is what I asked for, reasons, none of you are able to give that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I suggested, I suggested that you discussed the inclusion of the external links, and that justification is upon the ones who want to include the links. Forum links are NOT suitable, EXCEPT if it is established that they are the official links. That is just the part that is disputed, and I have not seen a proper discussion.

You are just full of crap, I am sorry. Since 2006 editors have supported insertion of the links. Your own 'Freds page' establishes the external links, but worse, please reference your demand that external links be referenced. Show me where wikipedia policy requires or calls for a 3rd party media reference to establish the distribution site of software. There is no such rule or policy. YSWT (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not said that external links need to be referenced, but a) forums are depracated UNLESS they are official, and b) they are not official. They are just another forum until it can be established that they are official. I have challenged that they are official, you, nor anyone else can show me they are. Until then, compusol is just as official as the forum or the wiki. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, "Why can't you discuss an article with civility?". It has been over half a year that I ask for some things that you can not provide, yet you reinsert, post on the forum to solicit others, you don't answer questions, you make statements which are close to libellous, you fail to answer to concerns, you claim things (e.g. involvement) about editors who clearly have nothing to gain, you promote a handful of websites you are clearly involved in .. etc. etc. You are the one who is now claiming that I am involved in compusol and are trying similar remarks to other editors who have been here for some time trying to get this article into shape. I have given you numerous times links to the guidelines and policies here, again:

• External links to forums are to be avoided, see WP:ELNO #10, except if they are official forum. But the point is, when you are asked how you established that THIS is the official forum, you say 'well, read the forum', that does not make it official. I ask you to discuss that with other established editors, but that is not done, however, other established editors also remove it. It gets only inserted by new editors and IPs, not those who are here longer (and are not involved). None of them. --Dirk Beetstra

Beetstra, anything might be pure chance in life. However, look at the article history. For MONTHS you only edited when the compusol links were spammed to the article. After not editing for months, there would be compusol spam removed and suddenly there you are with a 'oh, i just happened to look at this article and good thing.. need to fix back these compusol links' or whatever. Come on. It's insulting because you're acting like everyone is densely stupid. I don't know if you have an advanced degree or if you just BS on your wiki page. Maybe you are a super smart guy, but if so, you sure act like you think everyone else is stupid.

Also, you threaten folks. You've repeatedly threatened me, and by count now, over 20 other folks who complained about it on your talk page or on article's talk pages. Don't you see a pattern ? YSWT (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, I did not start with threatening, I started with asking questions. I don't get answer, you just revert without alleviating my concerns. I could block myself, I could protect the page myself, but I have asked and asked you to explain and discuss. Asked you to bring it to others (wikiproject?). No, you did not do that. I did. Still you insist in your same things. You do not answer those questions. Other editors show similar concerns with the sources and the language, others also say that the pricing is not encyclopedic, and not properly referenced. You insist. I am sorry, I deem your edits disruptive, and I warned you for that. That is not threatening, it was a fair warning. Note that Cameron Scott acknowledged the possibility of you being blocked. Take up the concerns, I am trying to help. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A sentence "there is a forum<ref>external link to the forum</ref>" is NOT verifying the subject. ANYONE can create a forum, and whatever, we need independent sources for that type of info. Is that there, minimal or none. See and read the verifyability policy ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."; YOU think it is true, it IS likely true, and others may also think it is true, even I THINK it is true, but THAT is not the point!! "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research".. if we THINK it is true, it is original research) and the reliable sources guideline ("Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article", still there were many references which do not DIRECTLY SUPPORT the info, there is a sentence "and commercial extensions by at least one remaining commercial developer" in the article that has as a refence "http://eccotools.com" .. if I click that link, I get to the ecco forum. The page linked to does not say that there is a commercial developer or that there are commercial extensions. It is the mainpage of a forum. It is not there, --Dirk Beetstra

You know you have a point on that. The link should be to the specific page listing the developments and explaining them. At one time there was such a link. It was edited by another editor to just be the base web link. Writing this is a waste of time and I will stop, because you clearly have a private agenda, but this is one edit --> moving from general to specific page, that I would also like to make. This is very different from removing the sourcing. Fixing is different from deletion. Fixing takes more effort, of course.YSWT (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then repair it properly. You did not do that, and others just revert and don't do it either. I have asked, quite a couple of times, to reference it properly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We are not a download service, Wikipedia is NOT meant to say "download it here", "do it like this", see WP:NOT--Dirk Beetstra

well, I think for software it *is* supposed to point to download site. Also, we are what we agree we are by consensus. You have a problem with that. You threaten, bully, repeatedly revert, etc. YSWT (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, is supposed to the download site. No, it is supposed to link to the official site. If it can be downloaded there, fine. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The pricing info. COULD be interesting, indeed, but it is unsourced, ANY number would be fine, as it is not checked. Moreover, what does it tell. Really. Several editors have told you it was not of interest, still you insist without verification nor explanation WHY. You have a real misconcept of what we are writing here.

I have explained it, over and over, we are asking those questions on the talkpage, still new editors come in and reinsert without explanation. Please help in finding proper sources for info, I saw a new one coming up just now, while I have been asking for some for months now. And you claim to be the/a specialist in the subject. If it can not be verified, it does not belong here. I have 'vowed' that I would try and do something about the first sentence here, people supported me for that, please help me with that. Please help me (and others) with doing just that, making sure that we can verify things are true, not that we write what we THINK is true. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you knew anything about the topic you would know that I am one of the world's experts on data structures and literally one of the top three experts on the Ecco_pro software. It is really a cool program and it has a cool story. What you aught to do is try it out. Many chemists love it (assuming you are a chemist), as do many many lawyers and accountants and judges. the software is FREE. there is no catch. (I suspect you know all this). Well, if you delete the references to the free software, and links lead to the compusol site, then software isn't free, nor the currently developed version. (suspect you know this as well). YSWT (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, YSWT. And the story is quite cool, indeed. But that does not mean that we should not reference it properly, or that we can't discuss things properly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted a source to fredshack.com. Although I am not convinced that it is a fully reliable source, it at least is independent of the forums, wikis and compusol. Are you familiar with that document and the writer? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you writing me this ? I don't have time for you. In short, you are full of crap. Just some examples "The pricing info. COULD be interesting, indeed, but it is unsourced" The pricing info was unsourced. I was not the editor to include the pricing info. But, after you removed it, (at the time claiming because it was in USD) I personally took my time and found proper references, in hard print magazine. So, the pricing was restored with actual concrete print media reference to support. YSWT (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, note that I really care about ecco but that does not make me a 'supporter'. Anyone interested in ecco or about ecco would likely want to know what ALTERNATIVES there are for ecco. Links to alternative programs is like link to competitor. A 'promoter' of ecco doesn't want those links. Someone who cares about the subject does. You have fought to remove those links. What does that serve. Compusol sells ecco. not listing alternatives serves that interest. I don't think compusol is going to get rich by hiding the actual and free distribution site and the alternatives to ecco. I think the article is more interesting and helpful with links to other programs like ecco. (since there is only a small group). Since the other programs are not noteworthy on their own, an independent wiki page not proper. external link is. at any rate, this is just talking into the wind. YSWT (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has systems for that, it links to Personal Information Manager, categories, etc. etc. A see also-section also helps. Certain external links also can help, indeed. Well chosen ones. And I have asked a couple of times for discussion (as suggested by our policies and guidelines ...), but well. Indeed, it is just like talking into the wind. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a wrap up of this above discussion, and I answered similar on Talk:Ecco Pro, I have asked, over and over, for independent and reliable sources for information that assert what is written in the article. We actually may be getting somewhere with Fredshack as an independent source. I asked for such references, and now I asked you about that document and its independence and reliability, no answer or help. And I thought you were the specialist here. Could we now please go back to some constructive discussion? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, regarding this edit. If you have comments to me, start an own thread, but stay out of threads of others. I will progressively undo from now on edits in threads on my talkpage in which you are NOT an originating party, and if you persist, I, again, will report you for ongoing disruption. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ecco0016.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ecco0016.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reasoning for this? I strongly recommend archiving, since the talk is one of the longest on en.Wikipedia. Long talk pages has issues with navigation, loading and editing.--Kslotte (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all that. On the Ecco_Pro page, somewhat unusual circumstance where full history maybe good to keep together. Basic background: About a year go, massive gutting of article, removal of references, and replacement with links to 'pay to download' website. (the ecco_pro software is freeware). When efforts were made to restore site, a couple of 'daily' and otherwise credible editors re-inserted the spam links. Those editors had never before contributed to the article, only edited at the same time (ie, edits only on those days as other editors also re-inserting or arguing for re-insertion), and then vanished until next round of spam link fights. The main 'culprit' seems to be from the same home town (in Europe) as the owner of the pay to download website. The full discusson history, shows this pattern. It also shows that the vast majority of editors [who not by coincidence have some actual knowlege of the supject of article] (although infrequent, so comments showing up every few weeks) oppose the 'frequent' wiki editor gruop [who not be coincidence have no knowelge of the article subject]. The greater the talk page is cut back in time, the less the large, but infrequrent contribution base is heard, and the more the frequent, but minority voice is heard. Since I am a part of tha majority, that is the POV would like the page reflecting..., naturally. YSWT (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your reasoning is quite much the same as other talk pages that has objected archiving. My recommendation is to make info box (or sticky thread) that summaries the issues you have. An example is this. Will something like that do the job? --Kslotte (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear YSWT. Again on the talkpage you are accusing me of personal attacks, and of us being influenced by the 'compusol guy'. I now want you to specifically state:

a) what you see as a personal attack in my post?

b) why you think you can make the accusation that all editors who are editing with another POV than you are influenced by the 'compusol guy'. Note that you are not allowed to post non-disclosed personal information here (see Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting of personal information), but you are free to mail it to the Arbitration Committee.

Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beestra, please see the article talk page for specifics noted. They include your personally directed claims that "you have not read our policies and guidelines" and that "you insist in wanting to violate our policies and guidelines." Both of your accusations are personally directed attacks. Both of them are false. Both of them tend to impune my reputation and motives. Both of them were made in response to my discussion of article text, specifically questioning why facts from a referenced article omitted speicifc relevant material from that article, including the fact of community contribution of the documentation, and that ecco pro had a dedicated user group. Apparenly you had no response to the issue of the text itself, so resorted to personal attack against me as an editor.

you point b) is an intentional or unintentional misstatement of what I wrote. I stated only that the editors who had just unilaterally edited the article even as discussion had not reached concensus on the talk page (in fact, as a substitute for discussion, edits were made to the article) were the objects of social engineering by the compusol guy. At one point I thought things were heading to arbitration, but then things became more focused in the article on content, references were brought forward to support article facts, and things seemed to be much mnre respectful all around. I hope the article discussion will get back to that. YSWT (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not see this answer. 'No response to the text itself' .. WHAT!?! I here, besides making the remarks, say "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles.", it is in the policies and guidelines why the text that we are discussing there should not be included, and I, again, pointed you to the policies and guidelines, and why the inclusion should not be there. Also here I explain that the text is violating content policies.

What is this blabber? I have repeatedly explained to you that wikipedia prohibits links to pirated software. What your above text has to do with that is beyond me. YSWT (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read in your comments that you do not agree with our content policies, but that is not something that we discuss on the talkpage of a mainspace article, that is something that you could discuss on the talkpages of the content policies themselves. I am, strictly, trying to follow those content policies (and I hope that I do that with all of my edits), and those same content policies exclude pricing information, they exclude trivial detail, they exclude information which can not be reliably sourced (and when they can, be sure that it is not sourced to primary sources only), &c. &c. Now, I am also aware that there can be reasons to ignore our rules, but they should still aim at getting a text which is conform our policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some specific reference in my comments for this. The issue is not wikipedia content policies, but your attempts to impose your selective interpretation of them, and attempts to shape an article to serve a clear interest, based on selective interprested reference to the wiki guidelines. As for pricing, you removed pricing info on the grounds that it was "America" centered. Please point to the wikipedia guideline that historic software pricing should not be included in an article on that software. Notably, what may be trivial to you on a subject you are ignorant of, may actually be imporant to the subject. YSWT (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, I gave a policy based reason, and you answer to that with "No response to the text itself". I don't know, if even if I make a policy based remark on content you say "no response to the text itself" ..

YSWT, pricing information should hardly ever be mentioned, per our core inclusion policies. And the information was totally unreferenced anyway (the reference that was on that section does not even mention old versions, let alone the pricing)

As to where you say you disagree with policy, see diff, as to the policy saying that "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.". It may have escaped your notice, but Nuujinn, Cameron Scott, and a plethora of editors in the past are actively challenging (not even 'likely challenging') large parts of the text (e.g. I with my challenge of the notability, necessity and correctness of the (unreferenced) pricing information; the article contains a complete paragraph for which almost all information (except for one sentence) can not be reliably, nor independently referenced). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cited this comment of mine as justification for your public accusation against me that I disagree with wikipolicy as "Do not agree that wikipolicy requires all facts stated in an article to be referenced, although certainly unreferenced facts can be challenged, which then would require referencing. YSWT (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)". This is clearly not what you have represented it to be. YSWT (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Ecco Pro could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even as you made libelous statements about me and repeatedly have tried to impune my reputation, I have never threatened you or anyone else with legal action. If I am going to take legal action I do so, I don't threaten someone about it on a wiki page.YSWT (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even as you made libelous statements about me - this is having a chilling impact on conversation and I'm afraid as you keep throwing around the word libel, I am going to have to move to have this account blocked. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've mave repeated and untrue statements about me, and have repeatedly attempted to discredit me as an editor. Beetstra also used the very same exact work "libelous" although his was directed against me (which is a threat) while mine are directed against your statement. Why is it that you would post this 'warning' and make this threat on my talk page, but not Beetstra's ? Hmmm. Do you have an agenda ? YSWT (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How odd is it that when I expressly say that I have never threatened nor would threaten legal action, you then attempt to use that as a legal threat since the word "libelous" was used to characterize your statements about me made in the ecco pro talk page. Seems like having me discredited or blocked has been your agenda all along. Why is that ? YSWT (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop throwing around the word libel and I'll consider the matter closed. As for the rest, I have no idea what you are talking about, I only edit articles where I have no connection to the subject matter (which is why my article list is so random, I pick up articles that are listed as problematical on admin boards), so whatever 'agenda' you think you detect, it's in your head. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, resort to personal insult. The word libelous is differnt from the word libel, by the way. Also, you've failed to explain why it is that you posted this 'warning' on my talk page, but no warning on Mr. Beetstra's page although he used the same word, but in a context that was directly threatening/directed at an editor personally, as opposed to the content of the text responding to. Could use some clarification on that one, please. YSWT (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember seeing it? - can you point it out? was it today? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is not productive. It must be cool thinking you can be totally ignorant and still write an encyclopedia. That darn expert guy keeps getting in the way, what does he know about anything! Being ignorant of a subject does offer a unique and helpful contribution to an article, just like an editor, if you're working with material from someone who understands the subject. Likely you're convinced otherwise, so does not seem we'll find common ground on this particular question. Also, don't take it personally. We've another editor ignorant on the subject who thinks using neutral langagues makes the article content neutral. You may think that too, and that's perfectly fine. What I find most interesting is that you would spend your effort contributing to something that is so patently silly-- the text about the 4 votes on ecco's compatibility. Either that is meaningless and does not need to be in the article, or if there is reasonable information conveyed that ecco is partially compatable with the program in question, merely that fact can be simply stated. you clearly realize the existing text is ridiculous, and yet you contribute to it, don't really chalelnge it or raise it for real discussion. The issue itself is trivial, but interesting on the invovlement for the sake of involvement, even in something patently silly.

Your personal attacks against me are not silly. This is a public forum. Maybe I am wrong, but I look at your comments from the perspective of energetic statements coming from a young, likely very young contributor. If someday my perspective on that changes, expect I will look at your personally directed comments also very, very differently.YSWT (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• young, likely very young contributor. wrong and wrong. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and as for 'ignorant', while I have no particular interest or knowledge of this product, my PhD is around information seeking behaviour and I have an information sciences based MSc (no I don't add any of my own journal articles to wikipedia before you ask), so I am familiar with information management and information technology generally. Even if I wasn't, it's irrelevant as we go off policy and reliable sources not claims of expertise (because anyone can claim to have a PhD and be an expert). --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Gary Ellenbogen, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Ellenbogen. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you were subject to the same abuse. I am filing for Arbitration against those involved. Your involvement is invited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.207.127 (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could say much, but would just be waste of valuable time.YSWT (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ClipsSample11.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ecco0016.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ecco0019.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MagicView Inside ECCO.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ecco0018.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]