Talk:Ecco Pro/Archive 2

Product functionality section
Much of this section reads like a howto, my feeling is that it should be trimmed down a bit. What do others think? -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Am assuming you've actually used the software ? The current version is:


 * The active views are also the report views. Information is entered in "items," (text blocks up to 32 kilobytes, or a Windows OLE object (such as a .bmp file, Microsoft Word document, Microsoft Excel document, etc.) that can be arranged hierarchically, as an outline.


 * Each item can be linked to one or more "folders" (by manual assignment, basic text matching, or with a free 'addon extension' by complex regular expression, relational lookup, computational, and Lua, Perl, JavaScript, VBScript, or Python programmatic assignments) which function as a fields in a database.


 * Thus, a user could write a note that read "Meeting with John Smith about Generic Project" and by placing it in folders named "Calendar," (assigned to a certain date), "John Smith," and "Generic project," the user could relate nearly any item to any other. This, combined with the built-in networking ability allowing free or controlled sharing of files and parts of files (online and offline), are seen as the core of ECCO's functionality. Each item, and each of that item's sub-items can be assigned to thousands of different folders of various types (text, numeric, date, pull-down, or checkmark).


 * Assignments to a date folder can include complex repeating date rules, alarms (including file/program execution), show until marked done options, advance notice options, advance warning, and follow-up rules and alarms. The items displayed in the Views can be filtered based on multiple criteria. Very basic auto-assign rules can be applied for each folder in native ECCO Pro, and more complex rules can be auto-assigned by use of a free add-on extension.


 * With a small fix, a hot link to any file can be added anywhere to the outline. When the user double clicks on the link, the item appears. Any file can be placed directly inside of the ECCO data file. OLE objects appear, can be edited, and then saved within the ECCO file. With the MagicView add-on, RTF/HTML pages can also be attached as folder values inside of the Ecco data file, or linked to external data sources.


 * The use of outlines and columns can be used to create user interfaces. Outlines are compiled by collecting the items in a folder. Users can display these outlines with columns relating to other folders, very much like a spreadsheet. The use of other features such as filtering and "views" allow it to be customized to meet a wide variety of purposes such as Getting Things Done, project management, bibliography handling, contact management, project management, and printable checklists.


 * ECCO provides native PDA support (for Palm and Treo devices)[3] and sharing over a network, and 3rd party add-ons provide for pocket PC (windows) and outlook hot syncs.


 * Ecco Pro also contains a DDE API which exposes many elements of the database to external manipulation. The API can be accessed directly via DDE, and there are several bindings with functions specific for Ecco Pro.


 * What specifically you see is a "how to" as opposed to explaining or providing a simplified example of functionality ? (If an editor hasn't used the software and the article text is confusing in some ways or unclear,  is helpful to point out in what ways so that those with knowledge on the subject can build on and improve existing article contents. Suggestions about how to describe functionality by an editor with no actual knowledge of the functionality,  unless relating to word usage, etc.,  does not seem so helpful. ) The software is free, there are free tutorials, and free help and support is available for the software.  Very much invite those interested who have not yet done so,  to actually use the software or carefully study the documentation, especially understanding the advanced functionality, and using that understanding to contribute to this article. YSWT (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And while on the subject, the functionality section skips the advanced functionality details of folder auto assignment,  of the programic folder rules, of the functioning of dependent items, etc.  These functions are detailed in the official active develpment documentation,  which happens to be in wiki format.  My POV is that an external link to the official documentation is helpful and appropriate.   Interested in Nuujinn's thoughts on this, please. YSWT (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, paragraphs 3-5 are the ones I'd drop from the article, they read like product literature or a manual, and WP is not a manual. As you point out, there is already lots of free help out there on use of the software, so there's little need for it here. Also, there's really no need to reproduce sections of the article here. Nuujinn (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, 1. the language in question is a ulta-compressed overview of functionality, and nothing like a manual.  2. the purpose is to explain / describe what ecco_pro is,  to provide an overview of basic functioning.   The text is very much a very global overview, compressing about a thousand pages of functionality from manual into 3 paragraphs.  Certainly this is not a reproduction of sections of manual.  But,  maybe the text needs to be expanded on each point, if the intended meaning is not clear.


 * Let's see if we can deal with it specifically, starting with first concept in issue:


 * Thus, a user could write a note that read "Meeting with John Smith about Generic Project" and by placing it in folders named "Calendar," (assigned to a certain date), "John Smith," and "Generic project," the user could relate nearly any item to any other.


 * This is trying to explain a basic function of how items (or sub items) of any outline can be related to any other item(s)/sub-item(s). Better clarification for this sentence might be:


 * Each item can be manually (or by simple or progrmatic 'auto-assignment rules') assigned to any of up to about 60,000 "folders". The assigment can be digital (true or false),  a numeric value, a text value, a value from a pulldown list established for that "folder", or a date value (fixed, calculated, relative to other dates, or repeating;  and without or without a time of day setting).   Each item/sub-item can be assigned freely to multiple folders.


 * So, for example, an outline item or sub item could be "Meeting with John Smith about Project X on Sept 1" and then (1) manually assigned (via columns, via drag & drop to an outline of folders, via automatic form assignment, via manual input via a pre-defined form of various folders, or manually by selecting one or more items at a time in the 'folder outline'), and or (2) automatically assigned, for example by a rule in the "Meeting" folder to assign date for items containing "Meeting with" and a date value (such as Sept 1), as well as the "Project X" folder (auto-assigning based on that keyword), and the "John Smith" folder.  Automatic folder assignements can be made based on other folder values assigned to the item, or to logical programic logic based on the item text, time item is entered, regular expression matches, etc.


 * The Meeting folder could be set up to include alarms, advanced & followup notice reminders, etc.  Any date folder can be set to have items containing values in that folder to appear on ecco's calendar and/or tickler views.   The "John Smith" fodler could be set to show up in searches of the ecco "phonebook", as a phonebook item.


 * Each folder (of every type, date, text, etc.) can be viewed by itself or in combination with any other folder(s) in custom "views", which are live views showing the items assigned to the folders (and if desired the outline parent context and sub-items of those items).  The views can include as live edit columns the assigned values for the items displayed.  Calculations based on values in multiple items within the same folder,  or multiple folders of the same item can be derived based on programic rules or perl/python/Lua/VB/JS/ruby scripting.  The calculations be be outline aware,  including awareness of parent and children values (text and folder) for items in the outline, as well as assigned related or "dependant" items.


 * OK. This has left out a lot,  but maybe is a more accurate overview of the assignment functionality addressed in this first sentence.  Let's deal with this aspect of functionality, and then address each other in turn,  as there is a lot of compression in the current text, that maybe is too compressed, and lost the explanation of overview as to what the software actually does.  As for the above suggested/tenative/first rev.,  replacement text for the first sentence in question, your thoughts Nuujinn ? YSWT (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My first thought is that the language used is not ultracompressed, in fact, for an encyclopedia it's pretty wordy. WP is an encyclopedia, and our jobs is to use reliable and verifiable sources to provide articles on topics. Your expansion of the sentence in question does read exactly like a manual or product literature, especially as you are walking the user through an example. The goal here is to describe what Ecco Pro is, not how one uses it. Also, we require sources for this information, if there aren't any, it should really go. Nuujinn (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuujin, permit me. (1) What is your POV on the distinction between what a software program is and how one uses it ?  (2) The above describes what can be done,  not how to do it.  (3) Above statements can be sourced to printed reference materials, the official documentation,  nothing above is newly discovered.  THI (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)Our purpose here is not to provide extensive detail on how the software is used, but rather an overview of what it is, including some information on features. I think this section, as it stands now, reads like product literature. I'll propose a version soon. 2). I disagree, since there's an unncessary example case worked into the description, and it's pretty verbose. 3). If you have access to these printed materials, could provide in line citations referencing same including page numbers? Those would be primary sources, so we have to be careful in how we use them, but careful use of a primary source is better I think than no source. I would point out that if this material is sourced from "the official documentation" it is, at least not to me, not at all surprising that the section reads like product literature or a manual.... -- Nuujinn (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn, 1. thanks for your contributions to the article.  2. you've responded "its pretty verbose" on the issue of whether the text was a "how to" or description of functionality.  3. What ecco does is extremely complex.  There is no other program that does what it does.   Explaining what it does is not so simple,  and good we are working on it.  Eliminating complexity of expression is very helpful,  elimination complexity inherent in functionality as a short-cut to elimination complexity of expresson is not so helpful.   See my commends below. YSWT (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed version
Ok, here's my proposed version. -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, have made accuracy and detail suggestions on a paragraph by paragraph basis, not addressing if this is leaving out material, etc.,  just correcting accuracy of proposed version.  Much missing here in explain what is ecco.  Ecco is a program that allows manipulating items based on dependencies.  Ecco is a database that is outilne aware, ie., assigment of item and 'folder' values can be based on an items location in the outline,  and the content of its parent or children items.   This is some key functionality that is not addressed.   Ecco is also a collaborative outlining program,  allowing real time collaboration over a network at the same time as off-line collaboration.   This key functionality is missing from text also.


 * I think the automatic functionality is also not described, such as automatically reading date from text and assigning to calendar, etc.  Also does not address ability to have same text in different outlines ordered based on different criteria,  such as in writing a paper, and allowing instant re-arrangement views based on different criteria. Also, the shared calendar, resource calendaring, and access restricted outline or phonebook sharing functionality may be worth mentioning as well. YSWT (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not at all necessary to address all of the functionality of the software--we are not writing a manual, tutorial or usage guide. Our goal is to provide a concise description of the software. -- Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. To my POV the article should set out those functions that make the software unique in functionality. What is this software for ?  What does it do ?  Other software such as a word processor is something known and understood.  Ecco is something different.  Programic text parsing and folder value assigment seems to me to be an important/key function of ecco.  Date parsing is also very important for those using ecco's date scheduling/date mapping side.  Eg., you can dump in a series of documents as items, and have a timeline created automatically, etc.   So,  key features such as text parsing for regex and date recognition seems signficant to general functionality.   YSWT (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that level of detail is not encyclopedic. I work in IT, and most large and well established programs have lots of special features. We're not here to document Ecco's functionality, but rather to give an overview. Nuujinn (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most well established programs fall into standard cataegories of programs. So it easy to describe MS Word,  it is a word processor.  But let's say there were no other word processors, and word was the only one.  How would you decribe its functionality to an audience that had only experience with typewriters.   You'd have to explain that you could see the text on screen as it would appear on the document,  that you could delete words,  mark sections of text and move them around,  save diffent versions of the document, etc.    Obviously,  since word processors are common today,  it would be silly to include those things in a word processor's article.   But for the first word processor ever,  these things would be important topics, perhaps. YSWT (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Information is entered in "items," which are text blocks containing up to 32 kilobytes, or a Windows OLE object such as a .bmp file, Word document, or Excel document. Items can be arranged hierarchically, as an outline, and can be linked to "folders" either manually by the user or automatically using regular expressions, relational lookup, or logic defined by a script. Date folders support assignments enabling dates rules and a variety of alarms and notifications. Items displayed in Views can also be filtered, and although the native program supports only basic auto-assign rules, use of program extensions enable more complex rules.


 * Information is entered in "items," which are text lines or blocks containing up to 32 kilobytes of RTF text or a graphics image, or a Windows OLE object of any size, such as Word document, Excel document, or any file packaged in an OLE wrapper by Ecco's built in OLE packager. OLE objects which support preview, appear in the Ecco item as a scaleable preview of that object. Items can be arranged hierarchically as an outline, and items at all levels of the outlines can be linked to "folders" either manually or automatically using regular expressions, relational lookup, or logic defined by a script.  There are six basic types of folders: Date, Numeric, Text, Pull-Down Selection, Check Box, and RTF (with the MagicView extension).  Date folders support assignments enabling dates rules and a variety of alarms (including running external applications at a set time or interval) and notifications, and can be marked done. In addition to the RTF text contained in any item, each text folder the item links to can contain contain up to 32 kilobytes of text per forlder assigment.  RTF folders can contain up to 8 Megabytes of data per folder assignment, or be linked to external data sources.


 * "Text folders can contain up to 32 kilobytes of text per forlder assigment." is redundant, it's covered in the first line. When you say there are six types of folders, that may be Ecco jargon, but normally one would refer to a data type. What you call Binary is normally called a boolean, since all computer data is at one level or another binary. -- Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, you're not familiar with the program, and that's helpful too.  The text should be more clear.  have fixed above, hopefully is now more clear.  The first line is size of the RTF item text.  In addition multiple text folders can be linked,  each allowed 64k of text per folder assigment.


 * Boolean is too confusing, so apparently is Binary not clear.  Have renamed Check Box which is proper ecco lingo, and hopefully more clear. Also, with mass micros today,  it may seem that all computer data is binary,  actually there are trinary systems (off/low/high).   maybe 'digital' is the better word...  YSWT (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Information is displayed in 'views'. There are three basic types of views: Calendar, Phonebook, and Folder based.  Views can be combined so that multiple views can be arranged on a single 'notepad'.  Items are displayed in Views based on the folders shown in the view and are displayed either in their outline context (with parent items, if any, of sub-items showing), or de-contexted (showing just the items linked to that folder, and optionally that item's outline children, if any).  The phonebook views display decontexted items based on the alphabet, search box or field query.  The calendar views display decontexted itemes in a calendar format based on the date assigments of any date folders linked to any items for the relevant period of the calendar displayed,  either linerally, or in block dated format.  Folder views show items listed in outline format under the relevant folders selected for that view,  showing only items (with our without their context in the overall outline) with a value linked to that folder.


 * Views can be filtered to include or exclude items or item trees with both regular expression and programic filters. Views can also show any folder values as columns,  and can be optionally sorted based on combinations of folder values.


 * What you mean by "decontexted" is unclear, and most of this is incomprehensible if you do not know the software. Please keep in mind that we're supposed to give any overview.-- Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have reworded above, more clear ? YSWT (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Outlines and columns can be used to create custom user interfaces. Outlines are created by collecting items in a folder, and users display these outlines with columns related to other folders, very much like a spreadsheet. The use of features such as filtering and custom views enable a variety of uses such as project management, bibliographies, contact management, and task management.


 * Folder data can be entered in several ways, including custom forms, columnual data entry, and selection of folders from a folder outline which can be edited and formatted like the item outliens. Outlines are created by the items which are linked to any folder. The comination of items linked to any folder determines the outline content.  The resulting outlines can be displayed with columns showing the folder values of the items, very much like a spreadsheet. The use of features such as calendar assigments, filtering, auto-assigment rules, and custom views enable a variety of uses such as project management, bibliographies, contact management, information and document management, and task management.


 * Again, this is too much information, and confusing. The first line is just to say you can enter data from different points. -- Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point! YSWT (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ecco Pro provides native PDA support (for Palm and Treo devices). Ecco Pro supports file sharing over a network, and third party additions provide support for syncing with pocket PCs and Outlook. Ecco Pro also supports a DDE API which exposes many elements of the database to external manipulation.


 * Ecco Pro provides native PDA support (for Palm and Treo devices) . Ecco Pro supports both on and off-line networking either over a network, over a shared device such as a USB drive, or via email. Changes on networked systems are buffered so that syncronization is maintained accross the network even when access is intermittent, and even if no two systems access the master network at the same time.  Third party additions provide support for calendar and phonebook syncing with pocket PCs and Outlook.  Ecco Pro also supports a DDE API which exposes many elements of the database and outline structure to external manipulation.


 * "Ecco Pro supports both on and off-line networking either over a network, over a shared USB device, or via email." This makes no sense. Networking cannot occur off line, since you're not on a network if you're off line. When you say "usb device", do you mean any other type of device than a usb drive? And if not, how is this any different than any other software, since anyone can transfer data from one computer to another with a usb drive? The same applies to email, I routinely share data programmatically with email. -- Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Hopefully fixed USB drive language-- good point.  2.  well, you certainly *CAN* network off line, but aside from that,  ecco allows you to network on very slow 'packet' movement networks.  Even as slow as sending update information via email.  Ecco caches modifications and updates networked users when they connect,  'buffering' the network.    Have re-worded,hopefully it explains the basic ecco concept of networked files, even when the networking is intermittent.YSWT (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ecco Pro was marketed as the world's first SuperPIM competing with other PIM programs. These included Polaris Packrat, Symantec ACT! (now Sage ACT!), Lotus Organizer, and Microsoft Schedule+ (predecessor to Microsoft Outlook). Also in this product space at the time was GoldMine, Starfish Sidekick, and Jana Contact.


 * Ecco Pro was marketed as the world's first SuperPIM.


 * That's much better. -- Nuujinn (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thus, current proposed revision for this section:


 * Information is entered in "items" and folders. Items are text lines or blocks containing up to 32 kilobytes of RTF text or a graphics image, or a Windows OLE object of any size, such as Word document, Excel document, or any file packaged in an OLE wrapper by Ecco's built in OLE packager. OLE objects which support preview, appear in the Ecco item as a scaleable preview of that object.  Items can be arranged hierarchically as an outline, and items at all levels of the outlines can be linked to "folders" either manually or automatically using regular expressions, relational lookup, or logic defined by a script.  There are six basic types of folders: Date, Numeric, Text, Pull-Down Selection, Check Box, and RTF (with the MagicView extension).  Date folders support assignments enabling dates rules and a variety of alarms (including running external applications at a set time or interval) and notifications, and can be marked done. In addition to the RTF text contained in any item, each text folder the item links to can contain contain up to 32 kilobytes of text per folder assignment.  RTF folders can contain up to 8 Megabytes of data per folder assignment, or be linked to external data sources.


 * Item text is entered directly as in a word processor, and folder data and links can be entered in several ways, including custom forms, columnar data entry, and selection of folders from a folder outline which can be edited and formatted like the item outlines. Both item text and folder values can be created or edited 'on-the-fly' based on progmatic rules or scripting. The progmatic assignments build on the similar functionality of Lotus Agenda and include regular expression matching and fixed (eg. Sept. 2, 2011) or relative (eg., next Monday) date recognition, as well as allowing for the scripting of rules in Lua, perl, python, JavaScript, and VB Script.  So, for example, by combining rules and Ecco's built in date recognition,  'date' folder values can be set to automatically schedule events, alarms, or followups which then automatically appear in calendar views at the appropriate dates.


 * Information is displayed in live 'views'. There are three basic types of views: Calendar, Phonebook, and Folder based.  Views can be combined so that multiple views can be arranged on a single 'notepad'.  Items are displayed in Views based on the folders opened in that view and are displayed either with their outline context (with the outline hierarchy, if any, of the items shown), or de-contexted (showing just the items linked to the folder, and optionally that item's outline children).  The phonebook views display decontexted items based on the alphabet, search box or field query.  The calendar views display decontexted itmes in a calendar format based on the date assigments of any date folders linked to any items for the relevant period of the calendar displayed,  either linearly, or in block dated format.  Folder views show items in outline format under the relevant folders opened for that view,  creating an outline of items (with our without their outline context) having a value linked to that folder.


 * The live views are the core to Ecco's user interface. Views can be filtered to include or exclude items or item trees with both regular expression and programatic filters.  Views can also show any folder values as columns,  and can be optionally sorted based on combinations of folder values.  Outlines are created 'on-the-fly' within each view by the items which are linked to any folder, as filtered by any filter settings.  The combination of items linked to any folder and active filters determines the outline content. The use of features such as calendar assignments, filtering, auto-assignment rules, and custom views enable a variety of uses such as project management, bibliographies, contact management, information and document management, and task management.


 * Ecco Pro supports collaborative editing and file sharing with user specifiable privilege levels via both on and off-line networking over a network, over a shared device such as a USB drive, or via email. Changes on networked systems are buffered so that synchronization is maintained across the network even when access is intermittent, and even if no two systems access the master network at the same time.  Ecco Pro provides native PDA support (for Palm and Treo devices) . Third party additions provide support for calendar and phonebook syncing with pocket PCs and Outlook phonebooks and calendars.  Ecco Pro has a native DDE API which exposes many elements of the database and outline structure to external manipulation and automation.

Missing from this is text on the automatic functionality, such as automatically reading date from text and assigning to calendar, etc. Also does not address ability to have same text in different outlines ordered based on different criteria. Also, the shared calendar, resource calendaring, and access restricted outline or phonebook sharing functionality may be worth mentioning as well. YSWT (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed the recent discussion in detail, but your post above looks fine since neutral language is used, and information is presented. However, a lot of detail like that is really more appropriate for a product's website. IBM Lotus Organizer is an example of a reasonably encyclopedic article, and more are at Category:Personal information managers. I would want to see the final article to really form an opinion since it all depends on how the whole page appears. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, an article on software with 1% of the functionality will have 1% of the text about the software. More relevant is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Agenda  which has 10% of the functionality of ecco.  Notice the text is very similar to above, explaining the unique concepts of agenda.  Notice also the text dedicated to date recognition in item text. THI (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest:


 * The progmatic assignments build on the similar functionality of Lotus Agenda and include regular expression matching and fixed (eg. Sept. 2, 2011) or relative (eg., next Monday) date recognition, as well as allowing for the scripting of rules in Lua, perl, python, JavaScript, and VB Script. So, for example, by combining rules and Ecco's built in date recognition,  'date' folder values can be set to automatically schedule events, alarms, or followups which then automatically appear in calendar views at the appropriate dates.


 * I have tried to stay out of this part of the discussion, as I thought we were getting somewhere. THI, You refer here to Lotus Agenda where the text is similar to the text proposed here.  Note that you have been told that we are not writing software specifications or a software manual here, an argument 'notice the text is very similar to here' giving as an example an article which also does not comply with that earlier, policy and guideline based, statement, does not help.
 * Moreover, calling the functionality similar, would need an independent reference, otherwise it is plain original research. A statement 'Ecco Pro is unique for its automatic date recognition which can automatically schedule events, alarms and followups.(ref)' would be enough, there is no need to expand on that further.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Beetsra, "you have been told" is offensive. We are here to discuss, not dictate to others.  This is not a deletion discussion.  If you have any reference that usage in other articles should not be discussed in content discussions, please provide.  Junic, who mirrors almost completely your positions from the beginning of both your involvement in this article, raised Lotus as an example.  It was legitimate for him to raise the comparison, and it seems useful to examine how other articles deal with similar issues.    If you have any reference in the wikipedia guidelines for your position,  please present it.THI (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

'You have been told' is a fine answer to editor who 'didn't hear that'...over and over and over again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cameron, offensive personal attack and disrespect toward other editors is never appropriate.

If you know of a guideline suggesting consideration of other article content is improper (other than in a deletion discussion where notability is at issue and so other's notability has no relevance) please provide it. THI (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * THI, that has been over and over and over linked, but you don't want to read it. So yes, 'you have been told' is VERY appropriate.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, let me put the argument in another way. Anyone can edit anything on this wiki.  That something is written somewhere, or if an article exists somewhere (on wikipedia), is not a reason for notability, not a reason that it belongs there.  We have policies and guidelines on this wiki, which help you decide what should be where, and what not.  Wikipedia is not a manual, not a software specification, whatever, those are all things that are determined in our policies and guidelines.  If somewhere there is a piece which reads as a software specification, then that article is in violation of our policies and guidelines.  Simple.  If one is then to say 'I want to write this as a software specification, because that article is also a software specification', then that person is, simply, knowingly writing in violation of our policies and guidelines.  OK, the example (WP:WAX) we give is specific for deletion debates, but the same logic is for everything, and is used around on Wikipedia in other things (see e.g. WP:OTHERLINKS, which is a project page, but the logic is the same; see WP:INN, an essay conveying a similar message, see WP:ENN, another essay, also similar).  If an article is written as a manual, it is in violation of WP:NOTMANUAL, if it is written as an internet directory, it is in violation of WP:NOTYELLOW.
 * I, again, am suggesting you (pl), to make contact with a WikiProject with affinity for software, or more specific, and get them involved here. They might be able to help out, having fresh eyes, and an idea on what does and what does not belong in an (or: this) article.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So, a Long winded answer for 'no' you have no actual guideline to support your POV. deletion debates relate to notability.  Another subject's notability is not relevant to any other's thus not proper in notability issue to compare.  No analogy for guideline in content.  Opposite.  Encyclopedia should have some consistent structure.  How other articles are written should be helpful for discussing any other. THI (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right, we should have consistent structure, that is described in our policies and guidelines, and to get it consistent is to make sure all articles follow said policies and guidelines. I said already, "If one is then to say 'I want to write this as a software specification, because that article is also a software specification', then that person is, simply, knowingly writing in violation of our policies and guidelines.".  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification regarding CompuSol and EccoPro
First of all I am very sorry about the often lengthy and hostile and in some instances juvenile exchanges between Wikipedia editors and some contributors. If some of our “eccopro” Yahoo group members contributed in a non-conforming way it is my intent as the original “eccopro” Yahoo Group Owner (not ecco_pro group) to apologize for that.

Sadly, I found text on the “talk” page of one Wikipedia editor which would need clarifications:
 * (I paid the compusol fee and downloaded from their site. While independent research is clearly
 * not appropriate for article text, it seems that it would be very relevant for determining an issue as
 * to the official download site. The site is distributing an installation package appears to be
 * created by compusol, and installs a copy of the old 1997 version of ecco pro. The installed
 * software files contains copyrights from Netmanage and other vendors and some portions of the
 * installation appear to be missing (some correspondence manage files, and a dll for database
 * management). The installed software is registered with the license distributed at the ecco_pro
 * download site, ie., it appears to have been taken from the official distribution site and
 * 'repackaged'. The text on the compusol site states that Netmanage allows compusol to distribute
 * the software for non-networked home users, if no charge is made for the software. Those
 * limitations are not disclosed on the download package, and I could find no way to download
 * without paying. )

The member-only Compusol installation has no files missing. The location of some relevant system files is different depending on either the 32-bit or the 64-bit version of the installation. Additionally to comply with MotionApps Classic and the new Palm WebOS the registry setup was modified. Contrary to the above the original 16-bit Netmanage version 4.0.1.363 is today still available for free at http://www.compusol.org/ecco/401e32.zip.

CompuSol established in 1986 was an official distributor of EccoPro under Arabesque and later NetManage. There is no evidence that NetManage gave a release to the so called (new) official “ecco_pro” Yahoo user group established in 1/28/2007. At that time the original Yahoo user group "eccopro" and CompuSol had the official original EccoPro download of NetManage available via zip file and per FTP link to NetManage, see http://coolthingoftheday.blogspot.com and http://jkontherun.com. See also the license agreement discussion and email exchange between CompuSol and NetManage of April 2004 http://www.compusol.org/ecco/netmanage.html. Two years earlier on 08/27/2002, after several interuptions of their free FTP downloads, NetManage allowed CompuSol to distribute a zipped version of the last original installation dated 8/27/1997. This version is today still available for free at http://www.compusol.org/ecco/401e32.zip.

On 5/11/2005 on request of many of the original "eccopro" Yahoo user group members CompuSol created a manual EccoPro installation for users of Win XP SP2 called “EccoFilesSystem.zip” which was freely distributed to other support groups which used it as their free distribution copy still in use today at http://forums.eccomagic.com/.

For over a decade CompuSol is spearheading the effort to keep EccoPro alive - in direct discussions with NetManage and during the failed push in 2005 to release the source code (please see the EccoPro Wiki home at http://www.compusol.org to enter please click cancel at the password prompt, and see also http://www.mail-archive.com).

Most of the history referenced here is based on pages sampled by CompuSol in the years 2000 to 2005 http://www.compusol.org/ecco/arabesquefacts.html, the ’93 press release http://www.compusol.org/ecco/93pressrelease.html, the Arabesque Vision http://www.compusol.org/ecco/arabesquevision.html, Ecco History by Tom Hoots http://www.compusol.org/ecco/eccohistory.html, and why Ecco failed (EccoPro as a business case) by Chris Thompson http://www.compusol.org/ecco/eccocase.html. There are also several original PDF copies of PC Magazine articles created from archived copies of PC Magazine at CompuSol from 1993 and 1997 available at http://www.compusol.org/ecco/ecco93.pdf and http://www.compusol.org/ecco/pcmecco.pdf.

CompuSol hosts many free tools and help files released to CompuSol by the originators, like all Catalyst Tools and Call Commander Pro by John White. Many of these tools are also hosted free inside the file section of the original “eccopro” Yahoo tech support group http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/eccopro/join. In January of 2007 the fresh owner/moderator "YSWT" of a competing Yahoo Tech support group “ecco_pro” http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/join accused the original (older) group of being spam infested in an attempt to lure members to his new tech support group (please see the most recent messages or messages of that year). If this Yahoo support group is now referenced inside the Wikipedia page so should be the original Yahoo support group created in the ‘90s after the demise of the EccoPro forum at CompuServe.

If Wikipedia allows commercial links as in the case with "YSWT's" commercial site http://eccomv.com which hosts Ecco related trial software to be paid for after 90 days, so should be the EccoPro member supported site at CompuSol http://www.compusol.org/ecco which is not referenced or linked in recent revisions. CompuSol recognized last year the need to update the EccoPro installation process for new operating systems like 32-bit and 64-bit Vista and Windows 7 and developed with the help of commercially available licensed programs a Windows compliant MSI installer. Additionally, CompuSol simplified the PDA synchronization process in cooperation with MotionApps http://www.motionapps.com to make the installation compatible with webOS and the new Palm Pre by using MotionApps Classic V2 emulator(see hotsync.html). Also, all original installers for the EccoPro Version 2 and the Version 3 are still available at the CompuSol site. For legal reasons and as promised to NetManage in 2004 (see netmanage.html) CompuSol will not and cannot charge for any software downloads or multiple distributions thereafter (see also the readme.txt http://www.compusol.org/ecco/readme.txt included with every free download). CompuSol charges a low yearly $10.00 membership fee for software and phone support which does not cover any new software developing costs.

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

http://www.sync2it.com/ Sync2it

http://friendfeed.com friendfeed.com

http://forums.eccomagic.com EccoMagic Forum

http://www.xmarks.com XMarks

http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.windows.eccopro gmane.org

http://www.wordyard.com Wordyard

http://portableapps.com/node/5137 Using ECCO on USB Drive

http://osdir.com osdir.com, ECCO under wine under Linux

http://www.compulegal.eu CompuLegal.eu

http://freemind.sourceforge.net freemind.sourceforge

http://forum.brighthand.com Brighthand

http://forum.darwincentral.org DarwinCentral

http://www.theconglomerate.org The conglomerate

http://www.allpm.com AllPM.com

http://www.donationcoder.com Donationcoder

http://www.hyperorg.com/ Hyperorg.com

http://www.outlinersoftware.com/ Outlinersoftware

http://www.guardian.co.uk The Guardian, London

http://projectmanagementnews.blogspot.com Project Management

http://www.fredshack.com/docs/pim.html Information Managers Fdohmann (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just some factual corrections:


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Finaly comment on the claim "For over a decade CompuSol is spearheading the effort to keep EccoPro alive". Compusol has had zero involvement with the active development of ecco.  The active development to keep ecco alive has been a huge effort, involving great contributions by many incredible folks,  including my own modest contributions.  Compusol has had no part and provided no assistance in the development efforts.  Compusol has had no part in the software's development,  no ownership rights, no distribution rights, nothing.  Moreover, the licensed version of the actively developed ecco pro software is 100% FREE.  No catches. YSWT (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors at Wikipedia have no interest in the squabble between two different sites, and the fact that one of them charges $10 for something is not relevant to any decision made regarding the content of the article. Now that each side has made a statement, I suggest that any further comments should be limited to what can be verified in a reliable source. I assume people do not need me to repeat earlier explanations about the various policies that apply here, but those policies are a requirement for editing on Wikipedia. What is needed is a proposal for how to handle the external disagreement between two sites in this article. I still think that the best pragmatic solution would be for each site to set up a web page with a summary of their position, and one external link to each site added, using WP:IAR if necessary. Apart from that, information in the article must be reliably sourced. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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

Issues with Compusol reference
am challenging this reference:

Versions are also distributed by Compusol.

Issues with this:


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


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


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


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


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


 * Have no problem with article explaining that '97 version of ecco pro can be downloaded for $10 at compusol site. If helpful for reader I support this text in appropriate article location.  But that seems like original research, etc.  No one has written, to my knowledge about this in any reliable media because it is not notable.  The official, licensed '97 version of the software is avaialble for free at the ecco_pro users group, along with the modern actively developed version of the software.  'Unofficial' version of '97 ecco is found on at least 5 other sites besides compusol.  Notably, there is no credible/reliable source that current versions of this software can be downloaded or are distributed by compusol-- because they can't and aren't. YSWT (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you want to go down this road? Are you are aware of how small this article would be if strict application of WP:V and other policies were applied? Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Do we really have any choice but to go down that road, at least a some distance? The article is a mess right now, and largely unsourced. My personal opinion is we'd be better off with a short well sourced stub than a larger article full of OR.
 * YSWT, blogs associated with newspapers and magazines may be used reliable sources as there is editorial oversight, see the relevant policy. Whether a site charges or not is irrelevant. What a journalist would write today is irrelevant. What we can say is what is found in verifiable and reliable sources. -- Nuujinn (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * Here is 2009 Wordard article http://www.wordyard.com/2009/03/24/ecco-in-the-cloud-with-amazon/ explicitly citing location for download. The article is more current,  and reference is explicit.   The distribution location: http://forums.eccomagic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1193820851   (FREE).   Do not think is necessary to include multiple distribution sites,  but,  if that is the desire,  the more recent citation of specific reference to a distribution website, to a free download of a free software package makes more sense then half decade old general reference to website that 'distrbutes' the free software, for a fee...   YSWT (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * YSWT, what policy or guideline can you cite that makes whether the software is free or not relevant to these discussions? The article does contain a link to the forum download site, but I note the author makes no mention of that. I'm not sure how we could use it. To be clear, the "desire" is not to include sites, but rather to include material that is available in reliable sources. I'm not sure about this source, since Wordyard appears to be a personal blog, but Rosenburg is a good writer. The main thing is tho I'm not sure how we can reference the download in the article without violating OR. I certainly think we could add a line like:
 * In 2009, Scott Rosenburg provided an explanation of how to download and install ECCO Pro software on virtual servers provided by Amazon, enabling access via remote desktop protocol.
 * What do others think? -- Nuujinn (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I agree with Beetstra on this as a general matter. Note that the Lua scripting is not controversial, however, the point is still well taken.  The eccowiki is the official documentation site for the software. That seems to me a much better source for the technical aspects of the program.   Notably, reference to official site of software for spec reference is appropriate.  Although it is in 'wiki' format,  it is not a globally open public wiki.   There is something really cool going on here, and I wish the article would reflect it more--  here is a group of folks working together to develop free software.   So, the specs/techinal documents are a wiki,  the distribution site is the user group.  It is something cool.  Ecco failed as a commercial product but then exploded as a freeware program. YSWT (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * YSWT, please stop inserting your comments within other people's posts, it makes it impossible to keep track of who said what and when they said it. Follow standard procedure and post below the other person's comments, and try to indent properly and consistently.
 * In terms of Eccowiki being the official documentation site for the software, please produce a reliable source demonstrating that. If that datum is in a prior discussion, please produce a diff of same. "Cool" and "free" are not criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, and we have to follow policy. Nothing you've claimed about compusol's distribution of Ecco pro is illegal--charging a small fee for site access is perfectly legal, just as charging for media containing FOSS, shareware, or freeware is legal, or Redhat charging for their linux installation and service, or forums that charge a membership fee. Comparison of the compusol website to porn and warez is not supportable, and unless you can produce a reliable source asserting that what compusol is doing is illegal, I suggest you drop that line of argument. The fact that you feel your copyrights were violated by them is not relevant--if anything, it suggests you should not be participating in discussions regarding compusol because of COI issues. Claims for inclusion must be backed by coverage in reliable sources.
 * I am also confused about your characterization of the software that compusol distributes being the 1997 version. If I understand correctly, the source code is not freely available for ecco pro and has not been released to the public. It is not the case that the ecco forum also distributes an early version, but with extensions?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * All of that being said, Dirk has a point, and as I have said, I am perfectly comfortable with the notion of following policy very strictly and removing all references sourced in and external links pointing to blogs, discussion groups, wikis, and fora. Do you agree that is the appropriate path to take? -- Nuujinn (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * it is clearly not a helpful nor appropriate path to take. The references and sources all comply with wikipolicies and we've had heated discussions on all of them and what is left is the result of what has been accepted by consensus. Artilce sources must be proper for every article, including this one.  If there is a specific issue with anything,  please review the prior history, and let's discuss.  Wikiguidlines exist for a reason.  If properly and intelligently/thoughtfully applied,  they should result in a good article.  Most all of the editors would agree with that, I hope. YSWT (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn, if this is what you were requesting, diff which, I think deals with last round of discussion to consensus on that (reference for active development/distribution) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEcco_Pro&action=historysubmit&diff=373583350&oldid=367039476. and ":So, I think we established that the forum is an appropriate external link. I will insert it accordingly. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)"  (also note, any misplaced response not intentionally before end of anyone's comments, etc.  perhaps you have some wiki edit tool/s to recommend ?? YSWT (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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


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

I've taken out this: In March 1997 NetManage introduced support for Microsoft Exchange 5.0 in Ecco Pro version 4. If it has some relevance to the article that anyone can explain, feel free. Does not seem that has any historic significance.THI (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm easy either way on that issue. I just removed some puffery, added some references from PC Magazine's archives, correcting some information. There's no evidence in the archives for Seymour's article choosing Ecco as Best of Anything for 1993, but the archive does not reproduce the magazine in toto, just the articles (which in this case is a blurb). We should be very careful to follow sources closely and maintain a neutral point of view--I am disturbed by the degree of inaccuracy and POV that crept into this article--as an example I'd point to the codeweaver's reference, which I toned down considerably. It's not a ranking of software overall, but rather a user-vote ranking on compatibility with CrossOver, a virtual machine package supporting windows applications on linux and macintosh computers. Nuujinn (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * You'd like the following better ?:


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


 * YSWT, I ask that you take care in your characterization of my actions, and that you focus on content, not the contributor. The text I provided is:
 * Even though the source code for ECCO Pro is not open source, development of the software continues. A programmer "slangmgh" developed an extension to Ecco Pro posted to ecco_pro users group on Yahoo. The new development includes fixes and upgrades to the program such as incorporation of the [Lua] scripting language.


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


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


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


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


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


 * "by respecting and combining the best from everyone's POVs" - this is *not* what we do here but you can't hear that and you carry on failing to hear that. I think, as suggested above, we strip this back to the most reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) I know that is not what you do with the talk page, but I wish you would. Respecting other's POVs, listening,  and reaching consensus is what this wiki article *should* be all about. (2) Certainly agree with you on keeping article based on most reliable sources where there is a conflict in facts presented by differend resources,  or for the article to discuss the different views and site appropriately. YSWT (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * Again, more personally directed attack. Again attempts to label and discredit another editor. Again, in place of discussion and concensus and then making contested edits, unilateral edits inserting editors' POVs.   Again, every editor making those edits were subject of compusol guy's social engineering efforts.  Resulting text is odd.
 * Why "is said to include fixes and upgrades to the program" ?  Every fact in article is based on something that is said elsewhere.  No reference contests the fixes and upgrades, so why "is said to" ?
 * Why 'an extension'. The referenced article calls it an 'extension' in quotes.
 * Why "Ecco Pro is ranked within the top 500 applications, based upon 4 votes, by CodeWeavers on their CrossOver compatibility list, where Ecco Pro receives a "unsupported bronze medal", indicating CodeWeavers recommends CrossOver users run Ecco on the CrossOver platform with caution—Save early/save ofte" Relevant that ecco appears on compatibilty list and tpe of compatability,  but minutue of "based upon 4 votes" is extremely not relevant to this article, nor is the 500 rating.  Again, odd selection of facts.
 * Similar odd selection of facts from Wordyard article. Omission of community contribution of documentation, for example.  Omission of dedicated user community.  These are the reported facts, but omitted.  Why ?  Subject of article is ecco's re-brith.  User community contributing documentation highly relevant, and reported in the source.  Omitted here, why ? YSWT (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I am sorry, YSWT. But we are trying to say that we have our inclusion policies and guidelines, and those should be followed.  There are quite some Wikipedia regulars here, who say that the sources that are available are not good enough for the information that is in the article, let alone what was in the article.  You are right, you are a subject specialist here, and we are asking you to help us with better references.  As it is now, some information is just not properly referenced.  And if information is not properly referenced, then it fails our inclusion guidelines, and it can go without discussion (and many here are disputing the current version before we consider removal).  Then a discussion can start what can be included, or maybe parts can be rewritten for that, but as I said below, Wikipedia is not exactly reliable, and leaving unreliably sourced information does not help that cause.  And that is following our policies and guidelines, see e.g. WP:EL, which states "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.", we don't leave it there while it may not be suitable, we discuss inclusion first.  And to make it even worse, consensus can change, so if something had consensus, but it is disputed later on, then we have to get a new consensus.
 * Regarding the compusol references of earlier. Some of those were to actual PC Magazine articles (some hosted on the server).  At that point, we did not have those references, and you can see that all have been replaced by the actual ones.  Then there was the compusol article itself, which I questioned as a reliable source (it is certainly not good enough!), but which, I think, is still higher a source than the forums.  All the other sources that were there were links to mainpages of forums, wikis, etc.  They do not provide a suitable source, they are a primary source, and primary sources should be used with a lot of care.  Same goes for forum and blogposts, they are to be used with care, as most do not have editorial overview or an other review process.  I am sorry, that there is not more available, so there is not a lot to go on.
 * We are all trying to make policy/guideline based arguments why something is not supposed to be there. Too much detail, not properly referenced, not notable enough to be mentioned.  It does not mean, at all, that it is not all true, but the problem is that it needs to be verifiable.  We are asking you to come with that information, but we seem to get into circular arguments, where we say that something is not suitable for inclusion following our policies and guidelines, then it is said that other articles have the same, we say they don't follow policy and guideline, and we get back to 'which guideline does it not follow'.  WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:MOS, &c. have been named over and over, and certian information simply fails that.  Yes, also in other articles, or there it is properly, independently, referenced.  I am sorry if I give in to my frustration there, but we really seem to be saying the same over and over.  I could e.g. go for the external link to the user group that is in the article.  There are many Ecco Pro sites, some directly about Ecco Pro.  The user group that is there, the old user group, the compusol site .. as Ecco Pro is not supported anymore by the original companies, what makes which one the 'official' link.  All three will claim that.  You claim it, Compusol will claim the same.  Both have some support in some independent blogs etc., but there is nowhere any documentation that says 'that is the official one'.
 * So we have a nice thing here. We have some Wikipedia specialists, with years of editing and thousands of edits between them, several are administrators (which means they, at least, were trusted members of the society) who are familiar with site policies and guidelines, and on the other side several specialists, who know the ins and outs of the software, and they know that all they say is true ... but who can not provide independent sourcing for it as it is not there.  If we bring those two things in line, we will probably end up with a small article, telling about Ecco Pro.  I don't think that there will be much detail left over, as a) it is not Wikipedia's task to do so, Wikipedia is not a webhost for a website about Ecco Pro, it is not a manual, &c., and b) a lot of it can not be independently verified (there is not enough to go on).
 * I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Version History
Versions of ECCO include : Key release dates Versions ECCO Lite: (SRP $59; sold direct by NetManage $9.99) ECCO Internet address book (SRP $69; sold direct by netManage for $19.95) ECCO Simplicity (SRP $99; sold direct by NetManage for $80; street price $65) ECCO Professional (SRP $279, street price $175–$199) ECCO Professional Extended (Freeware)
 * ECCO Internet address book, June 1993
 * ECCO Lite 1.0, June 1993
 * ECCO Simplicity, June 1993
 * ECCO Professional 1.0, June 1993
 * ECCO Pro 4.01, July 1997
 * ECCO Pro 4 Extended, February 2006
 * For standalone users
 * Calendar, PhoneBook, and Outlines
 * No networking or synchronization
 * ECCO Lite with an ECCO file of more than 2,000 Internet URLs
 * For network or standalone
 * Calendar, PhoneBook, Outlines
 * Cusotmizable PhoneBook forms
 * Group scheduling, synchronization
 * Shared Calendars, PhoneBooks, and Outlines
 * Integration with Delrina WinFax PRO
 * For network or standalone
 * Calendar, PhoneBook, Outlines
 * Cusotmizable PhoneBook forms
 * Group scheduling, synchronization
 * Shared Calendars, PhoneBooks, and Outlines
 * Integration with Delrina WinFax PRO
 * Customizable folders, and columns for categorizing and organizing info
 * Filters and sorts for selective viewing of info
 * For network or standalone
 * Calendar, PhoneBook, Outlines
 * Cusotmizable PhoneBook forms
 * Group scheduling, synchronization
 * Shared Calendars, PhoneBooks, and Outlines
 * Integration with Delrina WinFax PRO
 * Customizable folders, and columns for categorizing and organizing info
 * Filters and sorts for selective viewing of info
 * REGEX Quick Search and Filtering
 * Year 2000 compliant
 * Dependent item setting
 * Programic Folder assigments
 * Python, perl, VB Script, JavaScript, Ruby and LUA scripting
 * Indexed lookup columns
 * Mouse Wheel Support
 * Context Free Notepads
 * Automatic Folder/Item tracking
 * Tooltip item summaries
 * Data Corruption prevention


 * No. As explained before, this is not Ecco Pro's website where prices and lavish details are provided. You may think that persistence will eventually triumph, and it is possible that the editors (I think four of us) who are encouraging a cleanup of the article may leave and so "lose", but it is inevitable that others will arrive, and this article will be trimmed down to verifiable and appropriate text. As a single purpose editor you may not be familiar with standards expected in encyclopedic articles, and it would be in the interests of the article for you to work out how to include material you would like, while limiting the detail and accepting reasonable text from the "other side" (Compusol). There is no chance of a link to Compusol being excluded by some appeal to fairness (but they charge $10), so please just work out how to accommodate your desire for a good summary of the product with the realities of a collaborative and neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again you resort to personally directed attack and attempts to discredit another editor. The bulk of this text was inserted by previous editors,  not myself.  It was removed, not by coincidence, in conjunction with compusol links injection attempts.  Your view of us against you and 'losing' is not helpful.  Here is proposed text.  Please direct your comments to the text and not to me as an editor.  Please stop attempting to discredit me.  Apparently you have a problem because I am an expert in the subject of this article.   Enough.


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

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

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

Just to be complete:



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

None of this is suitable for wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Cameron and Dirk. Nuujinn (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So at this point the specific issues with the proposed text are:
 * Sourcing for post 4.01 version functionality
 * Sourcing for pricing information
 * Some detail to small to some editors views, such as mousewheel support and Y2k compliance.

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


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

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


 * I guess it would be nice to have a playground where you could start. Is this something for a sandbox first, so others can have a look at it?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem, I'll do a draft and post as a subpage here, and then we can discuss it. -- Nuujinn (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Yes, as an expert in this subject I have a huge objection. Generally, this is the problem of those without any knowledge of the subject attempting to do an encyclopedia article on it.  There are tons of sources for the functionality.  PC Magazine is your key source for functinoality of ECCO PRO ?   Look,  I am sorry.   You should learn about a subject before attempting to re-write an article on it that was written by those who are familiar with the subject.  There are entire periodicals,  (published print magazines) dedicated to ecco pro.  Why not research those-- or I can even send you some,  and use those to support the existing, and accurate text.  Or use official product manuals for functionality,  as in other software, etc.  YSWT (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bring any sources you like to the party, as long as they conform to WP policies. -- Nuujinn (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. You ok with official product manual for technical capabilities ?   You ok with official documentation website as proper reference ? YSWT (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, what is independent about those? What RS give them due weight? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


 * What exactly is here a personal attack? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * Well, YSWT (sorry for my typo in your name, by the way), we are telling you over and over, that certain information should not be included under our policies and guidelines. It has also been removed for that reason from the article.  There was a whole set of information there, which is not supported by suitable, independent references.  It fails our verifiability guideline, specifically "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles.".  I have asked you, and others have asked you, to propose information that passes our policies and guidelines.  There are here a handful of editors saying that it does not.  There are no suitable sources for it, most of it is trivial.  And the sources that you, until now, have proposed do not help for that.  They are not suitable.  I am asking you, and I have asked you, to follow our policies and guidelines, but you repeat the same arguments over and over, while it is explained to you, over and over, that those sources are not suitable per our policies and guidelines.  I am sorry, but if you want to re-include something that has been argumented to be removed, then try to re-write it, try to find proper references for it, and propose it here.  And that is what Nuujinn is working on.
 * According to the contested edits .. unreferenced or unreliably referenced information should be removed .. information that is in violation with our policies and guidelines can be removed at any time. That does not need consensus.  Inclusion does need consensus.  See e.g. WP:EL, it says there "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.".  Hence, prove before inclusion, not just include and leave it there and wait until enough people say that it is not appropriate and then remove it.  Wikipedia has a problem stated in huge text here, keeping unreliably sourced or unsourced information there does not make that better .. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * 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)
 * YSWT, although I do not agree with your interpretation of policy, please note we are (or at the very least I am) challenging the unreferenced facts. There were numerous factual errors and mis-attribution in the article for the referenced material, and likely the same holds for the rest of it.
 * Also, Cameron has not threatened you, but rather warned you that legal threats are strictly prohibited on WP. We are all trying to get you to understand policy. I think you should take a deep breath and consider your motivations--it seems to me that you might have a very strong conflict of interest which may be interfering with your judgment on these matters to some degree. Please keep in mind that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to promote products or ideas, nor are we here to hand out the truth. -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

Although you are not asking for my POV: I think that the the product manual or a product specification sheet is a reliable source for product functionality. It is however a primary source, and it is not a reliable source for whether said functionality should be mentioned here. 'The software has a close-button' can be referenced to the product manual, which most probably tells you how to shut down the program .. but the fact is not notable, as practically every program has a close button. It might be notable if an independent source, i.e. not the product manual or anything that is connected to the program itself (including forums, blogs, fansites, the product website, it would even exclude reviews for which the program owner has paid to get it published, etc., and it excludes blog/forum/whatever posts written by someone who is independent from the subject, it has to be a proper, independent reliable source), has written that the actual close button is special for some obscure reason (but I think it should be quite special then). Otherwise, the sentence, even while we all knowing it is true, 'The software has a close-button' does not have a justified reason for it being mentioned. And note, I am not disputing anything that is written or was written on Ecco Pro, I am disputing that a lot of it is not properly referenced. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Dirk on this issue, although I will add as caveats that the manual in question would have to be the one published with the release version (I say that since some editors have called web sites the "official source" for the software without providing references supporting that assertation), and that I do not believe more than a few paragraphs covering functionality are justified, since we are not a manual or howto guide. My suggestion would be that we use primary sources such as the manual only to verify material presented in reliable 2ndary sources.
 * In regard to the other issues, YSWT, take the advice or not, but when multiple people are telling you the same thing you might give what they are saying due consideration. Nuujinn (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)