Talk:Retrospect (software)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Advertising" and "marketing" terms in Retrospect, and other disputed matters

I had to fix a whole bunch of stuff, again, yesterday, including taking out a whole bunch of the word Retrospect, and linking stuff that was previously linked. Leave the article as it is. No one cares who did what. Leave it. If you put more in, I'll revert it. scope_creep (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I can’t find any Wikipedia standard that justifies scope-creep “taking out a whole bunch of the word Retrospect.” The use of a product name in itself is not advertising, marketing or public relations, so long as information about the product is “written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery"—which is true of what I’ve written. scope_creep’s editing-out of mentions of “Retrospect” has gone beyond adding clunkiness into adding inaccuracy in his/her editing of the last sentence in the “Success validation” item in the “Small-group features“ section of the article. I had written “Monitoring with 'Retrospect for iOS' is also available.”; scope_creep changed that to “Monitoring with an iOS client is also available.” [Here’s] the app on the iTunes store; it’s named "Retrospect for iOS" as the latest Retrospect Mac User’s Guide—which I used as a ref—says it is. The app is not a “client” in the sense of “small-footprint client applications running on the other computers being backed up” as the second sentence in the article’s lead says (it can’t be used to backup the iOS device on which it is running); instead—as will become crystal-clear if you click …More on the iTunes page—it is really a mostly-read-only version of the separate management console mentioned for Retrospect Mac in the first paragraph of the “History” section of the article—although it also connects to a Retrospect Windows backup server.

In the original article, before it 74 Retrospect words in the main article, and 21 or 31 in the refs. I think it was 21. Overkill and clearly violating WP:NOTADVERTISING. The number started to increase, which made it unreadable. Its now reduced to a readable level. Regarding the 'Retrospect for iOS'. No one cares what it is called. I made a mistake not classifying it as a client dashboard, which can be changed by yourself. Please don't add in extraneous details, which is not neeeded. scope_creep (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition, scope_creep made—misled by JohnInDC—what is IMHO a legally-dangerous unsourced edit to the single-sentence second paragraph of the “History” section of the article. When I wrote “… resulting in the release of a version of Retropect Macintosh that was ‘not fully baked’ …”, my ref directly after those quoted words was to the TidBITS Adam Engst “Retrospect Backup Software Acquired by Sonic” article. JohnInDC, in his 00:11 7 October 2017 edit, did a “consolidate references” that eliminated that ref. Thus, when scope_creep did his/her 00:22 7 October 2017 “Minor fixes to remove weasel words” edit, he/she changed “not fully baked’ to “not correctly designed” without realizing that the “weasel words” were a quote from a third-party review. By the 8.2 release a year later Roxio had put back the PowerPC compatibility intentionally left out of Retrospect Mac 8.0 and developed a workaround for an OS X DVD-writing problem—things which IMHO as a programmer with 40 years experience they wouldn’t have been able to do so quickly if it were “not correctly designed”. scope_creep should be aware that many of the people who built Retrospect Mac 8 still work at Retrospect Inc. (of which JG Heithcock has been for several years the CEO), and Eric Ullman has moved on to become a CCXP-qualified Senior Customer Experience Improvement Leader at Adobe. IANAL, but people in their position could sue Wikipedia for professional libel for “not correctly designed”.

Unless scope_creep can give an acceptable explanation of why he/she is justified in making these edits, I’ll have to take this to Dispute Resolution. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

By Monday 18 October 2017 scope_creep must do one of two things: (1) Give an acceptable explanation of why he/she is justified in making the “taking out a whole bunch of the word Retrospect” edits based on Wikipedia rules—not his own, or (2) agree to follow Wikipedia rules in the future for articles in which I am involved. Otherwise I will have to (3) take this to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Third_Opinion. The reason I have set this deadline is that I'm about to embark on writing the "Enterprise Backup Features" article. That article will inescapably consist of a lot of items of the form "Feature doing W: Retrospect calls this feature X, Tolis BRU calls this feature Y, NetBackup calls this feature Z etc.." Obviously I would have links to applicable documentation for each of the backup apps, but the "Enterprise Backup Features" article would be gibberish if I couldn't name the backup apps because scope_creep considers that naming to be Advertising. I've pointed out previously that the use of a product name in itself is not advertising, marketing or public relations, so long as information about the product is “written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery"—which is true of what I write. But scope_creep does editing based on his/her own rules, and doesn't bother to actually read the Wikipedia rules—or sourced material.

Here's an example of how scope_creep edits based on his/her own rules, taken from my personal Talk page. At 20:40 on 19 September 2017 scope_creep posted "... needed a copyedit, which I did, taking out all these pseudo statements, the dashes, which are not standard and don't conform to WP:MOS ...." I had to reply "First of all, you probably should read about 'Dashes' in the MOS yourself. That gives an example of using the em-dash .... It is exactly the way I use the em-dash ....", to which scope_creep replied at 21:51 on 19 September 2017 "Sorry, your right on that." Scope_creep had evidently invoked WP:MOS without bothering to read it.

Here's another example of how scope_creep edits based on his/her own rules, again taken from my personal Talk page. Also at 20:40 on 19 September 2017 scope_creep posted "Please don't put the dodgy language back, which is from the manual." Presumably by "the manual" scope_creep was referring to one version or another of the Retrospect User's Guide, but he/she never actually pointed to an example of "dodgy language" in the source—which IMHO means he didn't bother to consult the ref'd source and search for the "dodgy language". Even though I admittedly quoted the Retrospect names of features from the UGs because it would be tough to paraphrase those tech-writer-devised names, Dianaa had told me in October 2016 it was OK to do that so long as the quote was only a few words long and properly referenced. Instead I think scope_creep has created his/her own rule, in which words taken from sources should not be wrapped in quote marks. I've dealt with that scope_creep rule in my post of 01:17 13 October 2017 below. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't issue ultimatums, particularly over trivial issues like how many times "Retrospect" appears in the article, or what another editor may do in connection with an article that hasn't even been drafted yet. Sometimes editors can't agree, or just don't get along. Rather than escalate issues that in the end, don't matter, it's better to learn how and when just to decide that it doesn't matter, and move on. Now, as for this future article, when you do get around to drafting it, I would emphasize yet again that you can't simply write down things that you know or believe or have concluded, and link to various sources supporting isolated statements, in connect-the-dots fashion. You will need to find third party sources that already say what you are saying, which already draw the conclusions or connections that you draw, otherwise - again, it's going to be OR, or Synthesis, and not acceptable encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a place in which to publish original essays, or new thoughts, or different or better ways of looking at things. We summarize things that reliable sources have already said. The idea of describing a backup concept, then tying it back to terminology used by different brands of software based on (presumably) your own assessment of those functions is already close to the edge and makes me despair of ever conveying this concept in a way that will reach you. JohnInDC (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think scope_creep has already given his/her response to my 03:48 13 October 2017 ultimatum in his/her 09:55 13 October 2017 post below. To the extent that I understand it (it is rather incoherent; I'll read it again), scope_creep is saying "Yes, I edit according to my own rules [not WP rules], one of which is that if it sounds to me [my italicized interpolation] like a marketing term I'll delete it or substitute something something else for it." That attitude IMHO calls for Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Third_Opinion, since the overall result of that attitude has not been a trivial issue. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to explain what I intend to do in the proposed "Enterprise Backup Features" article. Consider this prgf. a placeholder; I'll replace it later today if possible. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to. Probably it'd be more productive and a better use of your time to start writing what you want to write in your Sandbox, and solicit comments from folks after you have something on paper (as it were). JohnInDC (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be more productive, because—as I'll proceed to explain—drafting an "Enterprise Backup Features" article to the point where it would be minimally acceptable to others would be a lot of work. I'm not going to do all that work and then have it shot down, either by JohnInDC for good-faith reasons having to do with compatibility with Wikipedia standards or by scope_creep because he/she "doesn't like the cut of my jib"—which after a second reading of his/her 09:55 13 October 2017 post seems to his/her underlying objection.

As I implied in the second paragraph of my 04:36 27 September 2017 post, the major problem with my 04:36 27 September 2017 version of the article was that it was too long for an applications software article because it included too many "Main Features". Working more or less collaboratively we then cut that section down to 12 lines (on my screen) of "Small-group features" by eliminating (with the exception of Cloud Backup) any feature that chronologically followed EMC's insistence on expanding Retrospect Windows from a backup app for small groups to a backup app suited to at least medium-sized organizations. By my count tonight that eliminated 18 features while leaving 12 features in. What made it possible to describe those 12 features in 12 lines was the use of extensive links—for which I give scope_creep full credit—mostly to the Backup article.

The problem in my writing an "Enterprise Backup Features" article, which would be Retrospect-independent but would describe those 18 eliminated features, is that AFAICT there are no Wikipedia articles to link to that describe those 18 features. The Backup article certainly doesn't, which is not surprising considering that most of the writing in that article seems to have been completed by 2007 and discussed on the Talk page by 2008. (And, BTW, that article seems to have been written more based on somebody's IT knowledge than on the still-checkable refs; IMHO it's in many ways an excellent article, but it wouldn't have gotten past JohnInDC's eagle eye). So what I'd have to do to write the "Enterprise Backup Features" article is to find refs in the available online documentation of perhaps a half-dozen enterprise client-server backup apps other than Retrospect, such as Tolis BRU and NetBackup and others for Windows (about which I know nearly nothing). If I can do it, it would be IMHO a contribution to the world's knowledge approaching the usefulness of the Backup article—but it would be a lot of work.

Therefore I don't want to start doing the work until (1) I have the good-faith approval of the concept by JohnInDC and other readers of this Talk page and (2) I've dealt with what I consider to be the bad-faith objections of scope_creep. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a gatekeeper so whether I approve of an article or not is kind of beside the point. And it's not easy to offer an opinion on an article that doesn't exist. What I can say, not at the risk of but in the certainty of, repeating myself, is that any such article will need to collect and restate observations that have already been made by reliable third party sources about the subject at hand. I get nervous when editors say that they're hoping to contribute to knowledge or bring a new point of view to people - Wikipedia articles by design and policy only reiterate knowledge that is already out there. We don't create; we compile. We're "editors", not "authors". So if there are articles out there, or books, or reliable websites, that describe the essential features of "Enterprise backup systems" and also connect up the different ways in which different products may describe these same core functions that each performs - then, well yeah maybe that's a worthwhile article. But if your intention is to mine a variety of sources to come up with a new, comprehensive list of features or characteristics of "Enterprise Backup Systems", and then march through the various applications in that market and translate each one's proprietary term into some kind of common terminology - well, that's all OR, it's all Synthesis, and likely a poor use of your time. I hope that's helpful. JohnInDC (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The phrase ‘not fully baked’ wasnt clearly marked as being a quote. It is an ugly, rank phrase, the sort of thing an admin would say, instead of more accurately, prematurely released, which is nicer. Find another quote if you can, but if not, mark it as a quote. scope_creep (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on. The review said, "not fully baked". It hardly a compliment, and whether it's rendered here as "not correctly designed" - or perhaps more accurately, "prematurely released" or "not fully user-tested" or "without sufficient quality control" - it's merely repeating what the source said, which criticism I'd add has been sitting out there for seven or eight years without the threat of litigation. Put back in "not fully baked" with the quotes, and we can ask scope to let it stand. JohnInDC (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"prematurely released" or "not fully user-tested" sounds better, than not correctly designed for sure. Put it back in, if it is a direct quote, but please say it is a direct quote. scope_creep (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've changed "not correctly designed" to "premature", with a ref directly after the quoted word. In addition I've put back in a brief "development was revived .. hired back ..." quote that does not increase the number of screen lines. I'm sorry to make such a big issue of these two items, but they are vital to real-world understanding of a historical problem, which is that many former customers of Retrospect Mac abandoned it—and still have bad words for it—because of a 2009 development glitch that was partly the consequence of EMC high-level management errors. Finally I have introduced the un-official term "flavor" throughout the article to distinguish between Retrospect Windows and Retrospect Mac—which have different UIs—without excessively using the "R-word". I can't use the term "version", because that term is officially used to distinguish new releases of the same "flavor" with additional features. I can't use the term "Edition", because that term is officially used to distinguish the number of server OS computers that a particular license permits a backup server to backup. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

flavor is not a recognised term in software, in any software, and is an artifical construct. Software versions, and is mac version, or windows or operating system version. I would suggest you use that, or product type, or something more useful to the reader. scope_creep (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"Variety", "variant". "Version" also works because people understand that it can have a different meaning used even in parallel with its other use (i.e., "release number"). "Macintosh version" and "Windows version" is not confusing in context. I also question whether the use of the word version to describe release numbers is "official" or formal given that the entire industry uses the term in that way. (Retrospect's peculiar use of the word "Edition" is a bit different.) "Flavor" is colloquial and not IMHO the right word here. JohnInDC (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've changed "flavor" to "variant", a term I like and am sorry not to have thought of. In deference to scope_creep's sensibilities, I have not enclosed the term in quotes except for the initial definition. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I guess that it is finished then. Good work everybody. scope_creep (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not finished yet, because scope_creep made an edit at 17:40 on 12 October 2017 to the article's "History" section after he/she posted the above that really raises a couple of questions about his/her following Wikipedia rules rather than ones he/she has made up. First, scope_creep removed the quote marks around "premature" in the second sentence of the second paragraph. Considering that "premature" is a direct quote from a third-party source footnoted immediately after the word, and that the word presents rhetorical language (fourth paragraph) that expresses someone's opinion, it is incomprehensible under WP rules—rather than scope_creep's aversion to quotation marks—to why scope_creep removed the quotation marks. Second, in the same edit, scope_creep moved the quote mark in the first sentence of the second paragraph in front of the word "until". The word "until" does not appear in front of "Development was revived ..." in the Macworld article referenced—it's my word, so I don't see why scope_creep shifted "until" into the quote—thus creating a minor misrepresentation of the argument in the source (third paragraph)—unless it satisfied some self-devised aesthetic rule. So scope_creep is still making up his/her own rules for quotations. IMHO this calls for a Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Third_Opinion; I'll discuss this above under my 20:13 11 October 2017 post. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

If he did it wrong then just fix it and explain what you did here. Then reconcile yourself to the fact that the article can be, and will be, edited in the future by scope, or me, or other editors and that no Wikipedia article is ever captured in a fixed state like a mosquito in amber. JohnInDC (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That would work if you had made the edits, JohnInDC, but it wouldn't work for edits scope_creep has made—he/she would just revert my changes because he/she is operating under the compulsion of his/her own rules (read my post above yours). The latest edits scope_creep has made aren't really that significant in themselves; what is significant is that he made them after he/she wrote "I guess that it is finished then. Good work everybody." IMHO scope_creep has just demonstrated that he/she can't resist putting his/her final stamp on this article, to show that his/her rules override everyone else's—including Wikipedia's. I hope I'm not like that. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your article edit of 01:56 on 13 October 2017, ‎JohnInDC. However the fact that scope_creep has let your edit stand so far doesn't prove anything about what scope_creep would do if I did such an edit. As I said in my post of 03:48 on 13 October 2017 (UTC) above, what I want is one of two possible commitments by scope_creep, either to rationally explain his/her own rules or to agree to abide by Wikipedia's rules on articles I'm involved in. One thing you should consider is what scope_creep wrote in a 12:13 27 September 2017 post on my personal Talk page: "Hi DovidBenAvraham. I hope to find you working on other articles on Wikipedia. I enjoyed the cut and thrust." I don't want cut and thrust, I just want a reasonable way of working with or around scope_creep. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham, Anybody who has a user account on wikipedia and is autoconfirmed can edit an article at any time. It is not a case of putting my final stamp on it. We are a collaborative effort here on Wikipedia. When I write an article, finish it for the most part, I dont care who edits, as long as they don't destroy the content, unless they are adding better content, which has happened. It is a fact of life. That is part of life on WP. There is a huge number of programs out there, in the 100s of millions, so people, IT people talk about what software is, particulalry a software version, or variant (which is not a word I recognize, but it is used in parts), they speak in generic terms, but very IT specific, as in computer science specific, which is acceptable to them, as that is what they are taught, and is common. IT companies, don't talk in computer terms. All the time, they are driven by branding and marketing. The software guys don't like it, but it is a fact of life. You come along, read the manual, and write an article that is completely outside the standard of acceptable writing on WP, and how things are spoken or written about. The way you write, is a direct way, in the way that is written by the branding guys, hence Retrospect for IOS. The software guys never wrote that. They would say something like, Dashboard release v1.0.2.9 for IOS. Branding guys come along - Retrospect for IOS, even though it is not Retrospect for IOS. Retrospect is the backup software, so how can it be the dashboard UI? So you are translating the marketing terms, doing the marketing guys a favour, their work on to WP, which is against WP:PROMO. And writing an article, which reads like a marketing skit. As regards the statement, the term used in this article, for lack of an official one I can't tell you how bad that is. Two people come along, tell you it is not acceptable to use branded language, and tell you what is normal and acceptable, but you still refer back to the language used in the manual, instead of searching for a term on WP, which explains it. The official term is version. On WP which is really a law unto itself, calls it revision (which has now been changed). Here is the link: Version control. Why do you insist on not looking for links? Version is the correct term, variant is acceptable as well. I've spent far too much time on this. I'm not a diplomat like JohnInDC. I need to get it finished. If I see any more marketing driven terms on it, when there is perfectly acceptable term on WP which can be used, or it starts to drift to back to what it was, I will revert it. Hopefully the Guild of Copyeditors will come along. Lets try it again: Cool, I guess that it is finished then. (in this time frame). Good work everybody. scope_creep (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

scope_creep, with the immediately-above post (to which I've stored the permalink elsewhere) you have confessed to tendentious editing. "Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view." IMHO this absolutely justifies my immediately initiating the process for Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Third_Opinion, but I'll give you until Tuesday a.m. British time to realize that you have been editing the article under the grip of several erroneous concepts and promise not to do that again.

Let me first deal with some of your lesser erroneous concepts. First of all, it is true that "Retrospect for iOS" is a name thought up by Retrospect Inc. marketing people; I would have preferred "Retrospect Read-Only Console for iOS" but they didn't ask me because I don't work there (and my name wouldn't have a marketing ring to it). I just used in the article the name that's in an Appendix to the Retrospect User's Guides, one of which I used as a ref. However it is not true that "flavor" was a term devised by those marketing people (who IME actually like to gloss over the unusual-in-the-industry operating and terminology differences between Retrospect Windows and Retrospect Mac backup server apps); I devised "flavor" all by myself—it is not in any manual, and substituted "variant" as soon as JohnInDC suggested it. Second, before I retired I was an application software programmer for 40 years; applications software, as opposed to system software, is designed to be used by people who are not IT professionals—administrative assistants in the case of Retrospect as I said in my 03:08 7 October 2017 post. I happen to have a very-quickly-acquired degree (for which I returned to school 26 years after dropping out) in the Computer Science "field of concentration" from an Ivy League university, followed by a non-PhD-track (I'm really not that good in math) night-school Master of Science in Computer Science degree from the highly-reputed New York University. So I can speak that way and read such things as the Retrospect Mac 14 Release Notes, but I wouldn't dream of communicating in those terms to a Retrospect administrator user—or to a non-IT reader of the article.

Now we get to your really pathetic erroneous concept, which is that you don't seem to understand what the function of a technical writer is. "A proficient technical writer has the ability to create, assimilate, and convey [my emphasis] technical material in a concise and effective manner." Yes, technical writers are hired by marketing people, but they are hired because the marketing people know that it is essential to convey technical information to application software users—since the users will tell their bosses not to buy the software if they can't understand how to use it. The Retrospect Windows and Retrospect Mac User's [my emphasis] Guides were originally written by able technical writers, and I got Diannaa's permission in October 2016 to use short phrases of their language provided I enclosed it in quotation marks and ref'd it. Where necessary I paraphrased more of their language, which Diannaa said was OK; I do not have access to go behind the User's Guide language and read Retrospect Inc. internal technical documents. Please be good enough to point me to an article substantially written by you where you have done this for an applications program, scope_creep.

I think that erroneous concept justifies a guess on my part that you, scope_creep, have never written an production applications program despite your having "worked in the computer industry in the UK for 25 years" and having "a BSc and MSc" (I habitually View History of pages for which I'm writing) . Instead I think you have worked at some level in system programming, which "aims to produce software and software platforms which provide services to other software, are performance constrained, or both".

As far as links are concerned, I've already thanked you in my 11:22 4 October 2017 for insisting that I increase the number of them; "using links to various sections of the Backup article has enabled me to use WP-standard backup terminology in the items and not have to provide explanations." I don't think initially resisting using links, because some you originally provided were IMHO too general to increase the reader's understanding—combined with my other good-faith initial errors—justifies the hostility to my having written the article that permeates your immediately-above post. And that's tendentious editing. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

How about linking AFP/SMB as well. DovidBenAvraham, it is unwise to cast aspersions on WP, and it can get you permanently blocked. scope_creep (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

My 03:00 16 October 2017 post doesn't cast any aspersions on you generally, scope_creep; it just says you've been editing this article based on erroneous concepts. I notice you're not denying the only guess I made in that post. However it would not in any way be casting aspersions on you to say that your experience might have been exclusively as as a system programmer.

Thanks for the suggestion about links to AFP and SMB. I originally had such links, but the mentions of AFP/SMB were temporarily deleted from the article. I'll put the links back in tonight. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

For completeness in the Third_opinion request I am about to file, I am including here a link to the Retrospect section of my personal Talk page. I am including the link because IMHO the first paragraph spells out in the second and last sentences scope_creep's idea that I have lost any rights to edit the "Retrospect" article by virtue of the RfC decision to reduce its size, and also because the third-from last sentence in the first paragraph spells out scope_creep's idea that any language taken from the Retrospect User's Guide "manual" is ipso facto "dodgy".

I am also including here a link to the reversion scope_creep made to the article at 01:30 on 18 October 2017‎, because "No consensus for filing editor to update article" in the Edit summary essentially states his/her belief that—as per the last sentence in the preceding paragraph—I have no right to update the article without getting consensus from other editors. Nobody has told me that the results of the RfC imposes that requirement on me, and indeed JohnInDC has usually after-the-fact accepted edits I have made since his big edits on 27 September provided that what I do is consistent with the RfC guidelines for the article. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

scope_creep's reaction to this has been to create a new section (formerly with misspelled heading) two sections below this, and to post there. IMHO that may be an attempt to hide discussion from the Active disagreement I have already initiated. I doubt that anything enlightening to the Third Opinion is going to be posted there, just a lot of misstatements by scope_creep. However, before I comment succinctly there, let me emphasize here that I have never been shown any consensus resulting from the RfC—nor have I—except in one justified case noted in the next paragraph—rearranged any comments on this page (I just put in a new section header between existing comments). DovidBenAvraham (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As noted below under "Consensus", I owe a slight apology to scope_creep. I forgot that I did move his/her 15:10 16 October 2017 post to this section. But that's where he/she should have put in the first place; it has nothing to do with "Favorite Folder". DovidBenAvraham (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As a general matter you shouldn't edit others' Talk page comments even if it improves them. JohnInDC (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I certainly understand that. However this Talk page has a big problem that it didn't used to have, which is that since 6 September we all have continued to post chronologically under the last section until the length of text under that heading becomes ridiculous—at which point one editor creates a new section named according to what the editor wanted to discuss at that time. Why don't we try to get back to topic-specific sections with much fewer posts under them? We can all use View History to see any new posts, then use Compare Versions to see where the new posts are in the Talk page, and finally use the page's Table of Contents to get to each section that contains a new post.

Now I need to re-discuss another disputed matter from far above this section. At 15:34 on 20 September 2017 scope_creep wrote "Nobody talks about multi-machine network or mixed-platform networks. I think they are probably a hangover from the 90s, possibly left in the manual." I did another Google search yesterday on "multi-machine network", and found 5 Web pages discussing multi-machine network rendering using After Effects. The latest of these pages—a YouTube tutorial—was uploaded in early 2015, although—if you look at the History section of the Wikipedia article—you'll see that the capability was added to After Effects by Aldus in January 1994. After Effects is now a product of Adobe, a company scope_creep may have heard of. So I'd like to change the first occurrence of "heterogeneous network" in the article lead back to "multi-machine network" (even though scope_creep will be upset because there isn't an applicable WP article for the term to link to), which IMHO will again make the wider usefulness of the Retrospect software much easier to understand for non-IT readers of the article who don't habitually use the term "heterogeneous". I think the insistence on the change to using "heterogeneous network" could well have been a consequence of scope_creep's presumed systems programming background. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

All networks are "multi-machine". Use "multi-platform". It's accurate and immediately comprehensible. See if you like what I did. JohnInDC (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess the right term is "mixed platform". Adjusting accordingly. JohnInDC (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Note: A request for a third opinion has been declined since multiple users are involved in this discussion. Users are recommend to pursue dispute resolution or to file a Request for Comment. Nihlus 02:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess the "multiple users" must have been deemed to include JohnInDC. I have now filed a Request for mediation, since IMHO the disputes seem no closer to resolution. That Request basically re-states the two disputes between scope_creep and me that were in the Request for Third Opinion; I've just put the WP "handles" of the disputants in. I have included JohnInDC as an additional party; however I have said that his concern only seems to be that I don't do anything that would expand the article again—I have not said that JohnInDC has taken any position in the disputes between scope_creep and me. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason you went with Mediation and not another request for comment? JohnInDC (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hell, yes. First, the RfC was a Kafkaesque process of which—as I stated in Issue 2—I still have never seen any written result, only scope_creep's assertion that I've lost all editing rights. I hope the Mediation process will be fairer. Second, the essence of Issue 1 is that IMHO scope_creep has come up with his/her interpretation of WP standards relating to the article by pulling it out of his/her posterior (possibly because of an inability/unwillingness to read at a university level). I hope the Mediator will engage in a dialog with scope_creep that will convince him/her that his/her interpretation has been incorrect. BTW, JohnInDC, if you can see your way clear to doing it I hope you will promptly enter your Party's Agreement to Mediation. Getting scope_creep's Agreement may be a more painful process. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your framing of the issue between you and scope; I think the particular issue you've identified is trivial in relation to the article at large; and as between you and me, there's nothing really to mediate. TBH these matters are way below something that a mediator should spend time on and, bearing in mind that Wikipedia operates by consensus, not by fiat, I think an RfC would be far more appropriate - all we need is another couple of editors to weigh in. If my assent is the determining factor in going forward with the Mediation process, I won't withhold it, but I'm not going to hop right onto the train. In the meantime perhaps it would help all of us if rather than speaking in generalities you'd describe the precise edits you want to make. I'm still sort of a third voice here and maybe we can just work through it. JohnInDC (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

First, as I'm sure both you and scope_creep know, my Request for Mediation was rejected this afternoon, so that process is now moot. Second, work on this article is now pretty well finished; I only want permission to make this change in the "History" section—which scope_creep reverted—and the one I have requested in my 20:35, 19 October 2017 post below. Third, as I've said below in my 12:17, 18 October 2017 post under Consensus, I'm mainly concerned now about the "Enterprise Backup features" article I proposed above. I now think it's feasible, as I'll discuss below in more detail in a new "Preliminary Discussion of 'Enterprise Backup features' article" section. However it definitely won't be feasible if scope_creep believes he/she has the right to edit "advertising" and "marketing" terms out of that article as he/she has done for this article. I maintain scope_creep's criteria for these terms are not based on a correct reading of any WP standard, and we need to come to some resolution—with your help and/or help from outside editors. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, given the stunningly opaque way the previous RfC for this article was done, I don't have any confidence in the RfC process any further than I could physically throw you and and another couple of editors in one effort (not that I want to physically throw anyone, but IMHO it's the appropriate metaphor). However I hope that scope_creep's announced departure from editing the article implies an end to the issue of scope_creep's idiosyncratic interpretation of the WP rules on Advertising. If OTOH he tries to apply that same interpretation to the "Enterprise Backup features" article, we'll have a real dispute on our hands again. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I realized the other day that the Comments in the Survey sub-section of this Talk page were in fact the "written result" of the RfC. However my Internet was down for 3 days as a result of Verizon stupidity, so my apology had to wait until it was back up. I'm sorry, the way the RfC was done was not opaque; I'm just dense. However, in those comments nobody said I should not be allowed to edit the article without prior consensus, which is what scope_creep has been recently claiming in reverting my edits. DovidBenAvraham (talk) DovidBenAvraham (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)