Talk:Ecco Pro

message: I just made one, cleaned up some prose, removed an unsupported claim, took out the code weavers section, copy edits. Just a head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh sweep 

message: Having watched editors who feel confident of their knowledge of wikipedia policy, and vast 'expertience' 'editing' wikipedia articles,  must say that result shows editors ignorant of a topic cannot produce an accurate, informative, and helpful article on the subject.
The article has been modified to be radically inaccruate.   The intro, "Ecco Pro is a Personal Information Manager based on a grid based outliner similar to a spreadsheet, and supporting "checkmark folders", which allowed filtering and sorting of information on user defined criteria.[1]"   Is horrid.    First of all,  does not even mention that this is a software program.  Secondly,  is factually erroneous,  ecco is not grid based, and while it supports 'folders'  checkmarks are only one type,  and the context based cross-reference value of ecco,  as well as PIM functionality is ignored.   
The 'wikipedia policy' based 'edits' seem not to care about accuracy,  "truth is not our purpose",  and reflect a very strange value system as to references (magazine article mentioning software is more reliable than software's reference manual, etc.).
YSWT (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't like your personally directed comments.  Just because editors 'edit' often does not mean they understand-- at all-- wikipedia policies. The result in this article speaks for itself.  YSWT (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: YSWT, do you mean that we, or at least a number of us, do not understand-- at all-- wikipedia policies?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I made a couple of edits based on his comments, and pulled the COI template (since we're free of that now I think). Yes, YSWT, truth is not our purpose, sorry about that. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To make this a bit laughable .. YSWT, are you aware the the second sentence clearly showed already that we were talking about a computer program .. you'r right, it wasn't in the first sentence, but well .. there is soo much not in the first sentence.  I'm going to update the text as such.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible, Ignorant, Erroneous Article 

message: Why doesn't the article have any recent information on Ecco.  I use the 64bit version with active scripting, clones, MV Pane internalized PDF files, bookmarks, and such, but don't see any of that in the article.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.184.70 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top.</br> The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). TJRC (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Latest Version Information