User talk:YSWT - Knowledge (XXG)

316:

smaller the level of refinement and detail, the more amazing the creation. "Some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Knowledge (XXG) 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.

966:

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.

3391:

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.

935:

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.

1129:

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 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.

3006:

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 (although infrequent, so comments showing up every few weeks) oppose the 'frequent' wiki editor gruop . 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.

406:

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.

2277:"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 ? 2100:: "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.", and "Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG)'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 1119:

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.

1220:

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.

2706:

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.

2204:

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. --

376:

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.

1701:

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).

2453:(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. -- 201:

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.

2161:

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.)

3079:

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.

2480:-—whether readers can check that material added to Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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 1856:

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

2104:, 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 3102:, besides making the remarks, say "Verifiability is one of Knowledge (XXG)'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 2750:, 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. -- 2230:

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.

2408:#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. -- 2401:

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:

1238:

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.

1289:

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 Knowledge (XXG) 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,

1526:

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.

2055:

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? --

2036:

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.

2921: 2784: 3459: 3228: 2151:

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.

2633:(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). 2421:

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.

977: 838: 2848: 2825: 922:. 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. -- 3083:

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.

3143:

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.

2259:

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. --

133:. 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 2096:

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

3394:

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

3346:

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

3331:

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

3078:

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

2602:

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

2384:

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

2229:

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

2068:

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

2017:

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

1819:

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

1539:

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

1483:

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.

1237:

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.

1148:

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

934:

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

656:

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

564:

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.

541:

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

165:

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

70:

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,

3390:

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

2239:

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.

2150:

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

2095:

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

2054:

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

390:

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

40:

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

3315:

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

3181:

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

3082:

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

2276:

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

1897:

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

1855:

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

1118:

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

965:

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

405:

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

200:

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

55:

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

2705:

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.

2684:

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

2614:

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

2505:

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

2258:

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

1596:

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.

1288:

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

1219:

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

1128:

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

315:

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

2632:

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

2420:

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

2203:

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

2140:

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.

1710:

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

1700:

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

3127:

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

2361:

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

2035:

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

1951:

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

707:

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

3132:

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

1525:

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

447:

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. Knowledge (XXG) is an encylopedia where

3428:

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

2400:

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

260:

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

137:

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 Knowledge (XXG). So far, your efforts in this matter have not been very encouraging, but if you really are

3005:

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

2310:

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.

2160:

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

3361:

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

1179:

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

234:

we see that "some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Knowledge (XXG) 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: Knowledge (XXG) guidelines on minimal

3195:

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

3142:

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

375:

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 Knowledge (XXG) guidlines I've cited. If you

1432:

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,

2452:

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

2181:

This is all original research, it cannot form the basis of an article. Knowledge (XXG) 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.

542:

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.

391:

have a very difficult time accepting. Knowledge (XXG) 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.

2768:

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.

2732:, 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. -- 1138:

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

1874:

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

3177:, 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 1193:

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

25:, 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. 286:

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

2488:

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

992:

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

1297:

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).

1187:

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

859:

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.

3283:

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

2295:

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 Knowledge (XXG), see

1350:

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

1310:

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

2840:

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

507:

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.

591:

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.

3165:

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

1597:

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.

1465:

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

1198:-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. -- 2885:

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

3060:

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

2670:

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?

2215:

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.

1540:

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.

1484:

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.

1183:

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:

235:

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."

3238:

could give Knowledge (XXG) contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Knowledge (XXG) itself. Please note that making such threats on Knowledge (XXG) is

2493:" .. 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, -- 2349:

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

733:

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.

1586:

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

3429:

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). --

2333:

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.

2685:

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.

3161:

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"

3562: 2562:

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.

1751:

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.

1382:

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

2619:, 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. -- 3024:

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

2430:

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 ?

2507:

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.

3557: 769: 2105: 1680:

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. --

227: 2119:

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

2000: 2472:" 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 3710: 3671: 3632: 3593: 3473: 1277: 809: 3301:- 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. -- 1839:

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. --

1612:

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. --

230:

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

3553: 3109:

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.

3476:. 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. 3053:

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:

2808: 2796:. 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. 2655:

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. --

2529:

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. --

138:

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.

2956:

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

3705: