Talk:Advanced System Optimizer

About the differences section

82.19.4.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) says that the differences section that was in the article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia: [1], [2]. First of all, it is not comparison with the other product in any way, it is just to pretty much give information about a few differences of each product. Some discussion is shown here. I would like a third opinion on this. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete both articles. Although scraping the literal bar of "notability from sources" by the absolute skin of their teeth, neither of these articles have any real encyclopedic value. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  How don't they have encyclopedic value? Please explain. This is NOT a deletion discussion, it's to resolve a content dispute using 3O. Just so you know, articles that don't look fully encyclopedic can be tagged with {{unencyclopedic}}, or any other appropriate cleanup tag and improved to an encyclopedia style. Thanks. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  I agree with Andy that they need to be deleted. I've had a look for some content but there's nothing that elevates this software above the many other software packages that do the same thing. I'm not suggesting that they are culled from the encyclopaedia completely, they could probably be included in a List of Maintenance Software article if such exists. The disputed section is not appropriate. It's not clear from the article why the comparison between the two needs to be emphasised. There's no connection other than they do something similar. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

They're now listed at AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Bill, these articles are clearly notable per their references. I'm surprised you say they need to be deleted. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your request from the 3O list. The 3O process is intended for disputes involving two editors, however it appears that a number of people have weighed in on the issue in this section. If you're still unable to resolve the dispute, please consider using alternative dispute resolution processes such as RFC, which is better suited for helping to determine consensus in issues that involve multiple editors. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC: About the differences section

Okay. The 3O of the section above was declined. Since this anonymous user says the differences are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article: [3] and [4], I would like to know if the differences section is appropriate for an encyclopedia, as I've not come across any policy or guideline stating it. I would like a quick consensus for this and close this RFC per WP:SNOW. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is: Should this article include material (from a reviewer) comparing features of the Advanced Vista Optimizer to one of its competitors? The tentative text is "Washington Post Review claims that Advanced Vista Optimizer does not include as many utilities as Advanced SystemCare Free. But Advanced Vista Optimizer works efficiently as much like Advanced SystemCare PRO." --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Off hand, I don't think this article should go into comparisons of the product with competitors. The article already reads too much like advertising ... see WP:ADVERTISING. I'd suggest that the comparison with the competitor be left out of the article, and furthermore that the article's wording be improved to be more factual and encyclopedic. I don't doubt that a reviewer made those comparisons, but an encyclopedia is not a good place to be repeating side-by-side shopping data: too much context is missing for readers to grasp what is intended by the reviewer. --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment so a 3O was looked for, of the two respondees one nominated it for deletion and one believed the section shouldn't be there, and the whole article should probably be merged. So why are we now going through the RFC on this? If you don't like the response of the RFC what then? However I'll repeat it's not encyclopaedic content, the data appears in reviews, but an encyclopaedia isn't simply a summary of reviews. I'll repeat what I originally suggested to you, look to well written articles like Opera (browser) (that's a featured article) to get a sense of what an encyclopaedia article on software is about. Reviewers have undoubtedly compared Opera to other browsers, yet we that article doesn't simply repeat what the reviewers said. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

IP: RfCs are a recommended early step in dispute resolution. The purpose of an RfC is to solicit input from uninvolved editors who have not participated in the article before (such as myself). You should not attack an editor for initiating an RfC: RfCs are good things and often have a calming effect on Talk pages with on-going controversy. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I specified that I didn't intend to edit this article further. The lister here requested a third opinion. I was quite impressed by that, since they could easily have just readded the content and I would have been good to my word of not editing further. The whole point is that WP:3O is to use your words "to solicit input from uninvolved editors who have not participated in the article before". We've had the input and so we now want even more input for some reason. This isn't an attack, it's a question about what is trying to be achieved - there is no significant dispute, there is no "on-going" controversy, there is no threat of an ongoing edit war, there have been outside opinions - what more is required? --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• If there is only one source which is comparing the two products and it is just one line then definitely not. Why should these two pieces of software be compared over any others? It's like putting a section into Microsoft Security Essentials and having a section called "Differences with AVG Antivirus". Why would you highlight the differences between the two pieces of software and ignore the rest. The sentence from the source in question would be much better suited for the reception section where it is now. One last thing, I'm not sure what you mean by "I would like a quick consensus for this and close this RFC per WP:SNOW." Are you looking for people to just agree with you or do you want proper comments? --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  What I meant was that I wanted to see the final conclusion of this RFC, and if it was a snow result, I would have made it a snow result. Would you mind signing my guestbook? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  Have to say I agree with Bill - there does not seem to be any particular encyclopedic value in comparing these two pieces of software in particular, especially since there doesn't seem to be a great deal of interest in the sources in comparing them (seen from the fact that only one of the sources makes this particular comparison). As an aside, there are not policies and guidelines spelling out everything that's unsuitable for an encyclopedia - but that doesn't mean that everything is suitable unless it is explicitely stated to be unsuitable. If that makes sense. (And that is indeed why discussions such as this one exist.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Can you tell me what the 3O section "was declined" means, I can't see it being declined. The opinions were asked for and given and as a result of that it was removed from the 3O requests. i.e. the 3O was completed. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

82.*, I declined the 3O. When I arrived, there were three editors involved in the discussion in the section above. 3O is intended to help resolve disputes specifically between two editors, but it was not clear which editors were involved in the dispute and which might have come along later. Additionally, the 3O process typically requires some effort to discuss the issue by the two involved editors already, but I didn't see any evidence of this having been done on this talk page. In this case, the 3O process is inappropriate for trying to resolve this particular issue, and an RFC would be a better option. As Noleander said, RFCs are good things in that they seek the opinions of multiple uninvolved editors - the 3O process only seeks the opinion of a single uninvolved editor. While the 3O process has an advantage in speed, the RFC has an advantage in being more comprehensive. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's break this down:

• "I declined" - well I don't read the comment above as a decline but an observation that more people have weighed in. Perhaps you need to be clearer in what you write. Perhaps you also ought to discuss with the people involved, in this case you made no mention to me.
• "it was not clear which editors were involved in the dispute" - Huh, the 3O is raised and people start commenting on the 3O, isn't it rather obvious? Do you decline pretty much every 3O request on that basis that once someone offers an opinion there are now too many people involved?
• "the 3O process typically requires some effort to discuss" - well if you'd looked there was plenty of discussion on our user talk pages before the 3O request being raised. If you'd look to this the previous point would also have been far more obvious.
• "In this case, the 3O process is inappropriate for trying to resolve this particular issue" - why? You state that as a fact. It's not, 3O managed to get other opinions, does that make it unsuitable for 3O some how?

It seems to me that if you are trying to help with disputes you are failing badly. 3O was sought, obtained, and then you barge in and "decline" it, apparently without looking to see what discussion had occurred previously or trying to work out who had come along to offer another opinion. I doubt I'll bother coming back to this since it appears to be a pointless exercise. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• You're mistaken. While another user may well have come along to add their views, they did not follow the 3O process to do so and may well have not realised a 3O request had even been made. When I responded, the entry was still listed at WP:3O. As you asked why the 3O process is inappropriate for this kind of request, I suggest clicking on that link and reading what qualifies and does not qualify as a proper 3O request. And if you'll read what I said above again, when I arrived to respond to this active 3O request, it was not clear which involved parties were the two original ones. No discussion took place prior to the 3O request on this page. I'm sorry you disagree, but both of these disqualify this issue from being a valid 3O request. Fortunately, an RFC doesn't invalidate any prior comments made on this page, it simply brings in additional opinions and helps build consensus. The more the better. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oh I see, so we're a bureaucracy now, disputes can only be resolved if all the I's are dotted and T's crossed. If that's not the case the opinions added become invalid and we have to follow a different process. Just reinforces my view 3O in the way you describe is nothing to do with trying to move a "dipsute" forward. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome to your opinion. Previous comments haven't been invalidated, they're still right here on this page (where they should be, not on user talk pages) for consideration. The only change is that the dispute is beyond the scope of 3O so it's been passed over to RFC. I still fail to see what problem you have with broader input here; both 3O and RFC are designed to help resolve disputes. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• This RFC has ended. The result is: Consensus says there's no need to explain differences. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

new life

Denmartines 14:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC) an article was really out of date so I decided to update it with the latest info about ASO features. also add some internal links to wikipedia pages. also will try to find "parents" for our orphan:) besides this is my first edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denmartines (talk • contribs)

Similarity with WinZip Utilities

It’s seems the author of this article forgot to mention that Advanced System Optimizer has same interface as WinZip Utilities. I didn’t find out who possesses original license but these two programs are exact copies of each other. They both have same placement of buttons, names of buttons, visual styles and so on. The only one difference is color of interface. So, does anyone know which program is eventually better?RethraTemple (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Advanced System Optimizer. 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/20120213233324/http://www.myvistaoptimizer.com/ to http://myvistaoptimizer.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004073905/http://www.registrycleanerstested.org/blog/2010/08/advanced-vista-optimizer-review-a-vista-must-have/ to http://www.registrycleanerstested.org/blog/2010/08/advanced-vista-optimizer-review-a-vista-must-have/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626195026/http://www.top5optimizers.com/best-windows-optimizer.html to http://www.top5optimizers.com/best-windows-optimizer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)