Talk:CVSNT

message: User: Thumperward has added this tag without providing any reasoning at all (on 15 September 2020), or discussion on this page.  Since this has been discussed in the past, I propose simply to remove the tag.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurBarrett (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:Notability

message: User:Qworty please discuss concerns you have here on the talk page.  The contributions you removed and marked as WP:SPAM were added by many people over a period of many years and have been discussed extensively here in talk.   Taking the unilateral action you did is unhelpful.  I have undone your unhelpful change. Arthur (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:SPAM

message: *DevGuy's Official CVS Software List
I didn't want to add software to the 'related software' list that I haven't tested with CVSNT, so I wouldn't know if any significant compatibility problems exist.  If someone could expand upon the list, including only the software that works fine with CVSNT, that'd help. ---Fractal3 18:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DevGuy's Official CVS Software List

message: has added the link (http://march-hare.com/cvspro/svn.htm) to both the Subversion article and this one. It's pretty clearly biased. Not only does the column for CVSNT show all YES's, but I'm pretty sure some of the NO's for SVN are incorrect. The comparison is 8 months old - SVN 1.3 has since been released.
The biggest doozie though was when I saw this on the page:
 March Hare Software provide CVS Professional Support and CVSNT worldwide.
And then:
 March Hare Software provide Installation, training, support and builds for OS/400 V4R5,
 V5R1 and later to Support Multi Site Plus and Support Enterprise customers.
Bingo! We have essentally an advertisement spreading misinformation, not a fair comparison. I've removed the link from the Subversion article and I'm tempted to remove it from this one as well. What do other people think? Imroy 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right really.  It can't stay.  It would be best if a WP article was made on the pros and cons of each. When I have enough free time I'll start one, unless someone else does.---Fractal3 01:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question has been asked quite a number of times on the CVSNT newsgroup - yes the SVN/CVSNT comparison on the march-hare page is a marketing document for CVSNT, not an independant review of the two systems, and I think it states that quite clearly.  I'd like to see such an independant review, but if one is done there should be a request for input from the architects from both systems since they have different design goals - it's like comparing a scooter to a Hummer, yes you can do it, but any "summary" is going to be skewed because they are clearly designed for different people/uses.  I also argue that the march-hare site is no different to the subversion collabnet site which compares SVN features to a CVS implementation that has been feature stagnant for 8 years... In summary I agree that a WP page is a good idea, but someone has to volunteer to get it started and preferably with some sort of outline that does not predispose a particular "outcome" Arthur 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased march-hare.com comparison

message: I have noted that the content of this page is VERY biased towards March Hare. Wikipedia is NOT a commercial for their services. I also note that links from other commercial vendors in favour of their own. (said by 86.128.243.105)
:An Ad campaign for CVSNT on the CVSNT page?  Advertising presumably means describing the Features, History and status and related articles and web sites?  I suppose that the Apache_HTTP_Server article advertises the Apache HTTP Server and the Apache_Software_Foundation too - quick let's delete it!
:You haven't specified what about this page is biased towards March Hare?  The bulk of the text (the Feature section) was added by User:Aming which User:Gronky recently wikified.  If you care to submit some text that better explains CVSNT then go right ahead - that is what the Wiki is for isn't it?
:Since March Hare are the primary developers and hosts the downloads of CVSNT then the primary links are going to point to March Hare.  
:Please use a signature when you leave a comment... Arthur 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK unnnamed person (you know who you are presumably) - sticking advert markers in this article (particularly when you are not logged in) does not constitute a helpful or worthwhile amendment.  I've combined the two Features sections because it did not seem like User:Aming  was going to come back and fix it and it seems this unnamed person considers themselves an expert on the topic of CVSNT but not enough so to take the time to improve the entry. Arthur 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This looks more like an Ad Campaign 

message: 'Features' third paragraph mentions the 'VSS-like reserved method'. I don't know what VSS is. Can some provide a link. Ajpeters
: Visual SourceSafe Cleduc 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VSS - what is it 

message: I've removed the following comment by Ijabz:
::However, CVSNT is now distributed by March Hare Software and comprehensive documentation is only available as part of the CVS Suite for $152 USD.
This comment is factually innaccurate since no documentation has ever been removed from the CVSNT project.  CVS Suite does contain additional (better written) documentation, but that is nothing new (has been that way for at least 4 years) and other publishers (like O'Reilly) have always published 'better' documentation than open source projects provide.
The author of the software and the license is already clearly in the article as a part of the 'box'.
The price of 3rd party products like books should not be a part of the main article.
Arthur (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CVSNT Documentation 

message: For a few years the CVSNT project has been rebranding.  On June 30, 2010 a major change was made to move away from the 'CVSNT' brand and the 'zero-dollar download' model.  The software is still 'free software' as defined by the free software foundation, but it'd be great if the CVSNT wikipedia article made some sense of the mess of brand names under the 'CVSNT' banner.
An anonymous user added a single paragraph about this which I've edited to remove the specific pricing (which could be construed as advertising) and added references, but this is a very very small start and possible adds to the confusion rather than clarifies.
Arthur (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Before and After June 30, 2010 (CVSNT, EVS and CVS Suite/CM Suite)

message: This is a WP:ADVERT, written by a WP:COI account controlled by a company employee .  The employee keeps vandalizing the COI tag.  No sources whatsoever are given for much of the material, so I've removed it.  The employee keeps trying to put it back in.  Everything in the article must abide by all of the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS.  This person has serious WP:OWN issues regarding this article, an attitude which is injurious to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter how long an article or portions of an article have existed, because articles that need improvement can be changed at any time.  And it doesn't matter that there are "similar" articles on Wikipedia--please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  You are not the personal owner of this article--please see WP:OWN.  You are using this article in order to commercially promote your company's product--please see WP:ADVERT.  Everything on Wikipedia must be properly verified and cited with secondary sources--please see WP:V and WP:RS.  Unreferenced material on Wikipedia can be challenged and removed at any time.  Also, please do NOT remove tags from the article--please see WP:VANDALISM.  Finally, do not accuse me or other editors of being "malicious"--please see WP:CIVIL.  I've listed here no fewer than seven Wikipedia guidelines and policies that you have violated.  On all of these points, you are in serious error.  Furthermore, you have not cited a single guideline or policy in your own defense.  That is because they do not exist.  I am now going to remove the problematic material.  Please do not restore it without providing references for it.  If there are no references for it, then it does not belong on Wikipedia.  It really is that simple.  If you choose instead to escalate this matter, please be aware that other editors will want to see you make points that are based on guidelines and policy, rather than on your calling people names and trying to muscle your personal commercial point of view onto the project. Qworty (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Qworty, thanks for your reply.  I regret to see you have again deleted large portions of this article, forcing me to restore it again.  You collaborate by working with other people, not by unilaterally deciding to delete other peoples contributions.  If you feel a section does not contain enough citations then the correct course of action is to add a tag "Unreferenced section|date=July 2011".  This then allows people time to add references.  I added 10 references this morning, but then lost them because you'd gone and deleted half the article.  These portions you are objecting to are NOT WRITTEN BY ME, it does not matter how many times you say otherwise - it does not make it any more true.  Yes I understand wikipedia articles need to be referenced and that the articles are collaborative (which includes anyones rights to delete stuff).  However the point of the collaboration is to create the articles, not to remove them.  The only reason I am editing this article is to build wikipedia, and I refute your allegations that I have any other motivation.  I keep removing your COI marks because it has been previously discussed extensively (above) and the COI marker was withdrawn without further complaint.  I am not referencing Wikipedia policy because all these issues have been raised previously and discussed previously (above) which you appeared to not notice when you added this section at the bottom of the page.  For example: under wikipedia guidelines a reliable source is only required when material is challenged or is likely to be challenged - you are the first person to do so (for the stuff you keep removing) and I do consider it malicious because it is extremely easy to verify (just like similar material in SVN and Apache Web Server articles).  Since you have challenged it then it does need referencing - but it can't be referenced if you've deleted it...  I personally feel I could do a MUCH BETTER job of writing an article on CVSNT than what is presented here - BECAUSE I DID NOT WRITE IT!!!!  I have no intention of re-writing it, I am just a small contributor, I do not behave or believe I own this article - but I do believe that you do not own it either, and that deleting large portions of other peoples contributions demonstrates a belief that you do own it.   You order me to be civil, and yet you are not.  You complain that I am pushing a point of view, and then push your own.  So in summary: if you think a section needs references, add the "unreferenced section" tag.  Look at the history of sections before deciding they were written by one person with a single point of view.  I would really like you to make some contributions, not just delete stuff.  Arthur (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

text:  Hi again Qworty, I saw you added 50 x citation_needed a week or so ago, rather than the suggested Unreferenced_section.  I can easily provide references for every citation_needed, but I think 50 is an excessive number and I am concerned that adding that number of citations would make the article very odd, and so have referred this to Dispute_resolution_noticeboard .  Arthur (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple policy violations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on CVSNT. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cvsnt.org/wiki/HistoryPage
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cvsnt.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CVSNT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020530114538/http://www.cvsnt.org/ to http://www.cvsnt.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User: Thumperward has added this "lead to short" tag after first shortening the lead.  The lead needed re-writing, and had a "lead rewrite" tag.  First shortening the lead, then adding the lead-too-short tag seems disingenuous.  The correct tag is lead-rewrite.  Don't rewrite the lead so it's too short then add lead-too-short.  I don't have time right now to rewrite the lead well, but I'll make it longer and add back lead rewrite.  I'm doing this because by shortening the lead it is now just plain factually wrong (it implies that CVSNT was popular in the open source world - whereas CVS was popular in open source, as was SVN, but CVSNT was primarily popular in the commercial world because it had added features that were required in commercial environments that SVN and CVS did not add because their focus was always open source (non-commercial) developers.
Arthur (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've tidied that a bit and removed the tag, as it does a reasonable job of covering the article's main points now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead too short / lead rewrite