Talk:Winlink

message: The Winlink article looks like a mere crib of winlink.org's mainpage :( 154.20.152.71 05:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure its all that bad? Between what I just read at pactor protocol details and an arrl site it looks like a lot of info is available. - Davandron | Talk 13:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a section called "Controversy" needs to be added.  WinLink is controversial for a number of reasons, and the ARRL recently had to withdraw its bandwidth by regulation proposal from the FCC because of a large number of comments about it being used to allow WinLink to crash all over the CW/digital portions of the bands. Then there is the third party traffic issue.  Many WinLink users seem to be simply boaters who want to have free/cheap maritime mobile email and are using ham radio exclusively for that purpose. PactorII/III is also a closed protocol.  This means de-facto encryption unless you shell out >$1000 for a SCS modem.  -- Ryan 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Saying a thing does not make it true, but as some very vocal people have found out, if you say it loud enough and to enough people you will obtain sufficient support where even those that "know" better will act. It's called Propaganda. 71.219.161.42 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I essentially agree with you.  The whole WinLink crowd has been propagandizing the mode, saying it's for emergency communications, when really most of the users are boaters who want a means of sending third party traffic (email) at sea without paying for it and without restrictions. I used to help run a PBBS at one time. It's a great mode, but I think that it doesn't have enough safeguards in place without segregating automatically controlled stations to one portion of each HF ham band, as it is now.  - Ryan 19:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More copivio discussions

message: The changes added in the 'Controversy' paragraphs include a number of statements that are strong opinion and not factual or verifiable through an independent third source. Edits have been made to adhere to Wikipedia's policies on NPOV and NOR (Neutral Point of View and No Original Research).--Lor 18:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy additions 

message: I disagree with the recent removal of the Controversy section this paints Winlink as the savior of us all and I don't consider the article to convey a NPOV at all it strikes me an advertisement of a proprietary product, the SCS Modem. Alan Kroeger 15:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Removal 

message: The How It works section looks to much like a howto section which violates wiki's edicts against howto articles Alan Kroeger 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How It works 

message: Is too long and it seems to contain information that exists in other articles. It also sounds like an advertisement too Winlink is not the savior that it is inferred to be in this article Alan Kroeger 16:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is too long 

message: I am just getting into amateur radio but have been around WP for awhile. This article is one big advert/rambling wreck that needs:
1. The copy vio jetted asap (intro is nearly all copyvio. History IS all copyvio)
2. Structure
3. Less advertising like tone and more encyclopedic tone.
Please feel free to correct me on any of these particular issues but I can back each one of these up with evidence. Spryde 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize but most of it was copy and paste from the Winlink site itself. We can't have that. It has to be reworded and sourced to be included. Spryde 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No apology necessary, you’ve done more harm than goodgood than harm.  I was thinking the same thing, but I’m too chicken to make such big changes.  Thanks! --Josephdurnal 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything that was removed is in the history or the original source for it is in my edit summaries (found in the history as well). When I find Copyvio, I try to point out where it was found. Spryde 10:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About to perform a copyvioectomy/stubification 

message: There has recently a been a bit of back and forth in various fora between Winlink advocates and opponents as petitions work through the FCC rulemaking and comment process which could have impacts on both Winlink and other users of the portions of amateur spectrum where automated operation is permitted the US.
A number of additions were made to the article in January 2019 which seem to be focused on one side of the debate, and while they are sourced, one must wonder about the neutrality/objectivity of the cited sources and content.
Accordingly, I am tagging the page as potentially being in violation of [WP:NPOV] and in need of a degree of globalization.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeTheActuary (talk • contribs) 00:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the start here. I'm looking over some things that need changes, like an edit to the 4th paragraph of the Controversies and U.S. Regulatory issues topic. As currently worded, it implies that there is no documentation of the technical characteristics of the newer versions of Pactor, as well as several of the other modes that are used by Winlink. I am also considering an edit of the first paragraph of that topic to remove the reference to the Pactor compression, since it's stated in the previous section that the Pactor compression is not used. And the reference used in that case actually doesn't support the claim being made anyway. Daywalker03 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: There is a focus in teh article on regulatory issues in the US. I notice that there are plenty of countries with no issues with Winlink, and other countries like the UK with no winlink stations at all. I would like to know which countries are allowed to run a winlink node and which are not. If there is a source for this information I am happy to write that part of the article, but a long discussion of the FCC rules is not so interesting to the rest of the (English reading) world. Billlion (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: US focus

message: It seems that there is a conception that Pactor 1 is the only version allowed under DA 95-2106, since the document only refers to it specifically. My opnion on this is that the FCC was willing to allow proprietary modes, whether multiple vendors supplied it or not, as long as there was some kind of description of how it worked so that someone with the technical capabilities could duplicate the mode if they were so inclined. SCS has in fact provided technical documentation of not only Pactor 1, but the newer versions and the compression they use natively, even though Winlink does not use it. Daywalker03 (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pactor and DA 95-2106