Talk:SmartFTP

looks very POV
looks very POV, uses the second person a couple of times. I don't know if thats against the rules, but it looks sort of like SmartFTP made this page.Mdesrosii 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

looks fanboyish, actually. Just proceed in further occurences, POV and original research arent rule of thumb here. --Omega Said 06:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

SmartFTP Used To Be Free
An unregistered user keeps removing references to the fact that SmartFTP used to be free for educational and non-profit use, claiming this is false information. I would be happy to add this back to the article citing relevant proof.

In additon it would be worthy to mention that the 'free' version by design had a periodic and unannounced 'expiry'. This would appear by surprise and require the user to re-download the software to continue free use. It is through this mechanism that all users who had been using the 'free' version are now forced to buy the software or find an alternative. Posts complaining about this seem to be quickly removed from their forums. (Freakyash (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

Facts
The facts are as following:
 * 1) SmartFTP was free to use under certain conditions which are not correctly stated here. The details can be found in the old end-user license agreement.
 * 2) The limitations (expiration) of the free version were clearly stated on the company website
 * 3) The application showed an expiration notice/dialog at least 30 days in advance to warn the user about the expiration. During this "grace period" the application was fully functional.

Spreading false or misleading information is considered slander and not just unethical but can also be legally convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.137.183 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Third-party sources
Just a reminder - download sites and other advertising media aren't third-party sources. Tedickey (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Added link to Microsoft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Microsoft's product-compatibility is interesting, but still not a third-party source, as most readers are aware Tedickey (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What is valid 3rd party reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be able to identify one. I'd suggest by starting to read through the guidelines, to see what applies to this topic, e.,g., starting with WP:RS Tedickey (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A reference to a book published by the MIT press should be sufficient according to the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

advert tag
To: Tedickey. Please point out the parts that you believe justify the advert tag that you keep on adding. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The topic as whole, dwells on features in a promotional manner. It is not encyclopedic, but is advertising. Tedickey (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that is your personal opinion but I see no evidence and you failed to show any. Also if you look at other pages of similar products, they are written in almost the same/similar way but they haven't been tagged by the community and neither by you. To me it looks more like that you have a personal issues with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you'd like to help improve other topics Tedickey (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, i tend to agree with Tedickey assertion.


 * For one, there is no reason to remove the template as well, as it is indeed based only upon the products parent company website. I would say the  is a matter of discussion, so i replaced it with the  template instead. Seeing your edits it is quite clear you have a conflict of interest regarding this software. I would urge you to read the respective policies.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 11:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing valid 3rd party links and then readding the missing reference tag is considered vandalism. I call your edits biased and based on your personal opinion and not in the interest of the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, apologies for that, i didn't notice i overwrote the external link as well - i re-added that one now. However, my vandalism claim was for the consistent removal of maintenance templates while discussion was still underway. As for bias and personal opinion: I chanced upon this page as part of my vandalism patrol, and as of such i have no affinity or opinion on this particular software. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 11:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

coi tag
Not justified because the user 84.75.163.182 only added minor changes and is not a major contributor (see history). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Editing history shows that 84.75.163.182 is the major contributor to the topic; however it's possible for more than one IP-address to be from the same user. Tedickey (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I really see no evidence of that. User 84.75.163.182 has only updated the Editions section of the article. All other content was not touched by this particular user. Even if 84.75.163.182 is considered a "fanboy" according to your opinion, the coi tag is not really justified as it applies to the article as a whole and not to an individuals contributions. The history shows that this article has been created and maintained by neutral parties over years. Other from the disagreements the user 84.75.163.182 had with the recent tags (namely yours: advert, primarysource) there is no evidence that the mentioned user has a close connection with the article. Actually it looks more likely that your actions are biased on personal issues you are having with the product mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC) No evidence of coi. Therefore coi will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.101.132 (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)