Talk:CVSNT

WP:Notability

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)

User:Mean_as_custard has added this tag without providing any reasoning at all, or discussion on this page. Since this has been discussed in the past, I propose simply to remove the tag.

There have been hundreds of different authors contributing to this article over many years, so this does not have the hallmarks of an article that is not Independent of the subject.

In particular the sources provide Significant coverage, are Reliable (are the vendor or contributors to the project, or established reviewers).

The listed sources are primarily the vendor which raises the issue of why deleted the other references.

Before removing the 'notability' I'll be sure to add some non-MHSL sources.

05:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPAM

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)

User:Qworty, I repeat, please discuss concerns you have here on the talk page. The contributions you removed and marked as WP:SPAM again were added by many people over a period of many years and have been discussed extensively here in talk. The COI has also been extensively discussed. Making unilateral major edits without discussion is of no help. I have undone your unhelpful changes again. Please do not make them again without addressing the issues already discussed here.

I repeat: there is no evidence any major contributor to this article has any COI, and there is nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines to prevent someone with a COI from making changes when that COI is well known and disclosed (this is described in much more detail below). Since this article has been created and evolved by many people most of whom have no COI I doubt why they would have created it to solicit business, products or services, or provide public relations pieces designed to promote a company or an individual. Clearly this article is no more SPAM than the Subversion or Apache articles are. Arthur (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest adding

I suggest adding a unique Wikipedia entry for CVSNT and doing something to handle searches for CVS Suite (the commercial version of CVSNT), eg: a separate page or a redirect to CVSNT.

See also the discussion page for Talk:Concurrent_Versions_System.

Here are some draft pages (certainly still need some work): User:ArthurBarrett/CVSNT and User:ArthurBarrett/CVS Suite. Please post in the discussion of those pages, or here what changes you would suggest / like to see.

Suggested Categories for CVSNT article are: "Software engineering" and "Free version control systems". Suggested Categories for CVS Suite article are: "Software engineering" and "Proprietary version control systems".

Adding these articles would also require some minor changes to the "Concurrent Versions System" page, eg::

DevGuy's Official CVS Software List

• 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)

See also

• CVS Suite - a commercially supported versioning software and defect management suite
• CVSNT - a free modern CVS with rename, audit, change management

References

• March Hare Software: All About CVS: How to Design and Build an Effective CM solution using TortoiseCVS, WinCVS, Bugzilla on Windows and Linux (2005), purchase eBook online

Limitations

After itemised list, but before notes on Subversion. Since a paragraph in the article already discussed Subversion as a solution to the limitations then I believe it is entirely acceptable to discuss CVSNT as a solution for the limitations.

Users unhappy with these limitations began the development of CVSNT and released the first version in 1999 replacing CVS. Linux and Unix support was re-added in early 2002, rename, Unicode and change management support was added in 2004.

Biased march-hare.com comparison

Fractal3 (talk · contribs) 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)

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)

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)

This looks more like an Ad Campaign

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)

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)

VSS - what is it

'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)

CVSNT Documentation

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)

Before and After June 30, 2010 (CVSNT, EVS and CVS Suite/CM Suite)

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)

IMHO your edits looks much more like advertising, and moreover you are a March Hare employee. 213.203.168.90 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi unnamed person I am unsure of what you mean. Do my edits look much more like advertising than what? eg: do my edits look more like advertising than the previous editor who put in prices and without references? Why don't you contribute a better paragraph?

Conflict of Interest and other recent unsubstantiated allegations

Hi unnamed person and Thetamind Why have you arbitrarily removed someone else's "Future Roadmap" contribution? I did not add that section, and removing it arbitrarily seems only to further the cause of people who maliciously claim that the article is predominately edited by me. Do one of the following: A) restore the deleted section B) contribute something better C) explain why the section was deleted here in the talk page (a simple comment at the time of deleting would have sufficed).

Hi Cameron Scott I do not understand the basis of you deleting the external link to a book which is in the references? Your comment on deleting was "no sales spam thank" but the link was to a page that describes the book, offers a download of the table of contents and yes also provides a link to where it can be purchased. Your comment on your previous change was "this need more links describing the product" - surely this link is EXACTLY what you are asking for. Can you offer some more explanation?

Hi User:Ukexpat I see that User:Racklever has already deleted your "Requesting speedy deletion" with the comment that "Article is only part spam"

Hi User:Racklever if you think any part of the article is SPAM I invite you to get involved in the discussion on the CVSNT Talk page.

Hi Ldsandon - you've added a conflict of interest marker on the CVSNT article with no comment, so I am at a loss as to what you mean by this. The wikipedia conflict of interest article states (in part) "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested." which I've already complied with.

I do not believe that there is any conflict of interests and propose removing this marker because: 1) my edits to the CVSNT article are to further the goals of Wikipedia not my employer 2) I have declared in my user profile that I am an employee of a March Hare company and I make my edits while logged in to this profile 3) Only 13 of the 50 most recent edit's are by me (and similar or lower number historically)

If anyone wants to make an improvement to this article then they should go right ahead. Assuming the good faith of contributors to Wikipedia is a requirement for all editors. Making arbitrary and unsubstantiated claims about the honesty of any other Wikipedia contributor is explicitly against wikipedia's terms: so stop it.

I will leave the COI marker on the article for a short time to review any feedback.

Arthur (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes to the CVSNT page made by you are aimed at putting CVSNT under a favourable commercial light - and IMHO that's advertising. Read for example the parts about future releases and roadmaps - that's not a neutral view of the products, that's promotion made by a company employee. You removed the changes when your company started to charge a fee for the open source release, rewording them not to put your company in a "bad light". And there's a link to your store, not to a product page. And to most, it's not clear who "Arthur" is. Also, please report the full COI policy: it also tells "COI editing is strongly discouraged", and you should fully read "Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance", not just what is useful for you. You of course have a strong interest in CVSNT as a commercial product, and you weren't neutral enough. This page should be almost totally rewritten by someone without any COI. Ldsandon (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

My changes are always done with the sole purpose of describing CVSNT accurately and objectively. I have not made changes aimed at putting CVSNT under a favourable commercial light.

If you want to discuss a change please cite it and if possible your recommended alternative phrasing.

Let me address some of the issues you raised:

1. I did not remove any 'changes' at any time (see point 4)
2. I did add citations (not links) - to the store because there is no other web page that is suitable to cite there
3. Adding citations is important
4. I removed content (prices etc.) that I did not add because it could be misconstrued as advertising
5. I edit for clarity, eg: "March Hare retired the freely downloadable Community edition" became "March Hare retired the zero-dollar Community edition"
6. phrases like "open source" and "free" are very very confusing, and so I am avoiding them and using clear plain English instead
7. CVSNT / CVS Suite is "open source" and "free" (according to the Free Software Foundation definition)
8. Clearly a change did take place in June/July - pricing and architecture - and I support any accurate reflection of that change in the article.
9. the most recent person to change the "Future Roadmap" section was User:Optikos in April 2010, so therefore a neutral view of the products and clearly NOT a promotion made by a company employee.
10. I've been back over 18 months of history and can't find any changes I've made to "Future Roadmap" at all and I really cannot understand why therefore you are raising that section as an example of promotion by a company employee
11. For anyone involved in CVSNT it is very clear who "ArthurBarrett" is (I've been project manager for 6 years and responsible for all announcements and all 2.x bug fixes for the past 3 years or so), and in Wikipedia my interests are as clear as the COI policy requires them to be
12. I have read the COI article and I believe I am in compliance with all its recommendations - this article has been MOSTLY written by people without any COI as I explained earlier.

I am unsure but it appears as though you are particularly upset about the changes I made on 22nd August to the changes that User:151.57.206.124 made on 20 August. I personally believe that the paragraph that User:151.57.206.124 added was disingenious. However after waiting a couple of days I edited it to rectify the following serious issues::

1. Prices should not appear in Wikipedia articles
2. The quote about public access to source code was misleading - the public access had always been a voluntary service and no guarantee of availability was ever offered and this had been made clear year after year on the mailing list, and stated anew on the latest announcement.
3. The quote about downloading CVSNT without support for £426 etc. was misleading because CVSNT 2.8 can still be downloaded with support for 30 days at no charge and then £85 (per user) not £426. The prices needed to be deleted and the rest of the sentence made little sense without it.

Rather than simply rewrite, delete or object to the addition of that paragraph I added references and corrected the misleading language. These changes were for the sole purpose of clarity and compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines.

If it's a different edit that you are referring to - please be clearer. You can just go ahead and improve the article further if you like, or discuss it here.

I really appreciate you taking the time to contribute to the CVSNT article and to discuss your grievance. Please continue to improve the article and work within the Wikipedia guidelines - articles are to inform not promote or disparage.

I propose to remove the COI marker from this article next week.

Arthur (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you removed and reworded what could have been somewhat felt as bad advertising about your product, i.e. freely downloadable is much more clear than zero-dollar, but the latter removal sound less "evil". Your editings were IMHO aimed at putting CVSNT in the best possibile light especially despite recent changes in its open source policies (and despite your citing the FSF I wonder if CVSNT itself still comply fully with the GPL, i.e. clauses 2 and 10 of the GPLv2 or [1] but that's another matter not of Wikipedia interest), and that's, IMHO, COI. Probably anyone involved enough in CVSNT history and development knows who A. Barrett is, but whoever reads this page may not. I really believe this page needs a whole overhaul to better describe CVSNT, its history, features and status with no intent to put in in any good/bad light for commercial interests. Ldsandon (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. OK I think your concern about the wikipedia article is much clearer now - you believe "freely downloadable" is clear and I do not (free: libre or freedom?), I changed it to "zero-dollar" because I believe that is clearer and neutral but you believe it was changed to sound less "evil". Assuming the good faith of contributors to Wikipedia is a requirement for all editors - please do not breach of this rule.

You have raised a valid editing issue, you and I are at a stalemate over the wording "freely downloadable" versus "zero-dollar" and I don't know how to resolve that. Since the original contributor of that comment has not responded or complained then I think the issue is moot

The discussion on this page is about Wikipedia CVSNT article editing, which is a collaborative effort - it is not anyone's place to rewrite entire articles, promote or disparage, or speculate on legal matters.

I am not a major contributor to this article (13 edits out of 50) and so am removing the COI marker.

Arthur (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

IMHO you have an unfair way of turning rules to your advantage interpreting them as you like. "Good faith" is a requirement, but that doesn't mean all editors comply just because they write here. IMHO there's very, very little good faith in what you wrote. You're just trying to promote your product and minimize damage made by the last direction change, disguising it as much as you can behind prettier words. As you speak a lot about "free software" - the GPL way - while I am almost sure CVSNT 2.5 and especially 2.8 do not respect the GPL itself. But this discussion is mooth because soon this will be just an historical entry few will care about. Ldsandon (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming the good faith of contributors to Wikipedia is a requirement for all editors - please do not breach of this rule. I do not believe this is the best venue to discuss the GPL, however I am happy to clarify that March Hare Software do distribute software such as CVSNT under the rules of the GPL. It does sound to me as though you are very upset, however I cannot see any way to assist you further at this point, and I do not think that wikipedia articles are an appropriate place for invective. Arthur (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest and other recent unsubstantiated allegations (was: To ArthurBarret)

Your claims of objectivity do not stand even a minor scrutiny. You specifically demand explanations from people who - having no proven bias, unlike yourself - are trying to improve this page. Clearly, in your opinion, they are not improving the page. You ask the person who removed the marketing section (future roadmap) to either restore the section or contribute "something better". What non-COI business does a 'future roadmap' have in an encyclopedia?

Finally your claim of a 'stalemate' over the definitions of "freely downloadable" vs "zero dollar" is just laughable. If you want to gauge public perception, hit a search engine and find out which wiki page the first page of results for 'free' link to. Then do the same for 'zero dollar' or whatever other marketing term you find most convenient.

You may have made this page but you do not own it. COI is important, but NPOV is equally important. If there is any doubt over the ambiguity of a term, it's really not difficult to gauge public perception. There is no need to guess. Please restrict your opinion to the talk page and don't let it influence your edits in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.129.132 (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to write to me personally then do it to my talk page, not on an article, however you should be logged in with a real user account - it is difficult to take anonymous criticisms very seriously.

Assuming the good faith of contributors to Wikipedia is a requirement for all editors - please cease this vitriol.

I did not write this article (13 edits out of 50) and further allegations or inference of such by you is unhelpful.

This article about CVSNT is merely presenting the facts and notable viewpoints of others. If you have a reference for alternative points of view please add it and reference it. Encyclopedias are inherently written in this way as the truth is often subjective, and it would make no sense to have an article that favours a particular viewpoint.

I maintain that "freely downloadable" is a poor description of what CVSNT was and "zero dollar" is better - I performed a quick google search and 'free' does not in any way describe what CVSNT has ever been. CVSNT was (and is) licensed under a free software license and as such was (and is) encumbered by many requirements - "free" implies "gratis" which the Free Software Foundation go to a lot of trouble, to ensure people understand that the GPL is NOT about gratis but about freedom. Remember that all content in Wikipedia should ideally be supported by a reliable source, but content that is controversial or likely to be challenged will definitely require them!

The Future Roadmap section you mention is an example of this - it cites a reference which is what is required. I did not contribute this section, and I stand by my assertion that simply removing sections contributed by others is not a useful definition of 'editing'.

It does sound to me as though you are very upset, but wikipedia articles are not an appropriate place for invective.

Arthur (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

a violation of the GPL

The wikipedia guidelines for content state that content that is controversial or likely to be challenged will definitely require support by a reliable source. Please use a ref tag to cite a source for this. Note: it is probably insufficient to simply cite the GPLv2 Section 3 since a quick reading by me does not suggest there is any obligation for the vendor to ensure that the download source is available 24x7. I further believe that as currently written your comments are incorrect since CVS Suite 2009 does install a link to the vendors web site with detailed information about how to obtain the source code

The issue of GPL compatibility with CVSNT and particularly the recent changes has been raised previously (see above), so this suggests there is some interest in this topic for the article - however anyone attempting to write such contributions should be very careful that they are not offering opinions but simply collecting and citing the opinions of others (suitably referenced) to avoid claims of bias or potentially even libel.

If you personally are trying to get source code under the terms of the GPL I suggest you contact the vendor and only if that fails then you contact the FSF.

Arthur (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to press the issue, however it seems to me that, unless the offers and links you are referring to are both included with the "trial" version, and go somewhere else besides the page on your company's website which requests a payment in excess of $1000 USD for access to the code, that the requirements of Section 3 for equivalent access are not met.

Section 3 of the GPL offers the following 3 options for GPL-compliant distribution. Bold for emphasis was added by myself.

   a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the 
      terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, 
   b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more 
      than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding 
      source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software 
      interchange; or, 
   c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This 
      alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or 
      executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
   ...
   If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering 
   equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third 
   parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

I suppose you could get by with the claim that it costs you $1000 to tarball a CVS repository but considering that's something I can do in 5 minutes by running a single command, I doubt it. If the offers DO provide an alternative which counts as equivalent access, and I could certainly be forgiven for assuming they don't, then and only then would I apologize. However, as I clearly outline in my response on my User talk page, no claim has been made which justifies your veiled threats of legal action --QuasarTE (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) (Edited at 22:13 CDT for additional clarity).

I feel like I'm being a bit slow, or a bit dumb here, but you seem to be simply citing the GPLv2 Section 3 and a quick reading by me of the link to the vendors web site shows it includes detailed information about how to obtain the source code in compliance with the GPL. If a "server is up or down" on the vendors "web/cvs site" is not typically the sort of thing that a wikipedia article has sections on. Are you sure that wikipedia is the right place to address this, or is this simply some kind of technical support issue you should be discussing with the vendor? Arthur (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary." (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee). Also it would be interesting to check if the so-called non GPL parts of CVSNT violates clause 2 of the GPL itself when it says "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.", how the CVSNT server can be told not being a "part of the whole" given it can't work without the CVS GPL code (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem)? It may look one of the reason to make CVSNT code difficult to obtain is to hide GPL violations. --213.203.168.91 (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The main CVSNT landing page evscm.org has just been updated with a new section About the CVSNT Project and that has detailed sections on project funding and licensing/payment. I still don't understand what about the above explanation was unclear, but perhaps these new pages help answer your questions? I never heard back from you as to whether you question is simply some kind of technical support issue you should be discussing with the vendor. Arthur (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple policy violations

This is a WP:ADVERT, written by a WP:COI account controlled by a company employee [2]. 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)

Hi Qworty! Thanks for joining the discussion and for contributing to this wikipedia article on CVSNT. Unfortunately you appear to have deleted large amounts of the article; twice!, without discussing it first. This is unfortunate since I had to 'undo' them. Before I undid your changes I created a new talk section right at the top of this page for you to see when you came back, but you appear to have missed it, and all the other discussions about COI and references archived here on the talk page, and have created this new section at the end here. I can hear that you are upset about this article, but I have very little information about why, and how it is any different from concerns previously raised and suitably addressed according to other wikipedia editors. Based on the very very limited information I have from the comments you left when you deleted large sections of other peoples work (not my work) I feel that the issues you are raising have already been discussed above on this talk page. It is really really important that you follow the wikipedia guidelines and assume the good faith of other contributors - even those who disagree with you, or those who have a declared or undeclared COI. Since this page exists and has existed for some years and the sections been widely contributed to and has survived several attempts at deletion by those not following wikipedia guidelines, I think it is reasonable to assume that it is unfair to summarily delete large sections of it. I don't wan't to rehash all the detailed discussion in the sections above, and I'm not going to. However in the interests of time : this article is written primarily by people without a COI (ie: not me) and the references are in line with other related articles like SVN an Apache. The sections you removed could be improved and the 'this article needs improving' tag has been on the article in the past and has improved dramatically since then (in terms of references and generally following wikipedia guidelines in line with other similar articles for other products). Please remember that wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and your views do not exist in isolation to others views and should be expressed in a collaborative frame. I implore you to collaborate rather than remove significant amounts of work of other contributors. Please stop removing large amounts of the article until you have reached consensus with other authors. I personally restrain most of my edits to changes that can be reasonably described as 'editing' (grammar, sentance structure and maybe picking a synonym that is less contentious, amending changes to conform to wikipedia guidelines) and adding references when the author appears unable to do so. Over the next couple of weeks I'll endeavour to add some more references to the 'feature' section which appears to particularly concern you - but other similar Computing Wikipedia articles already use this 'unreferenced' approach to 'headline' items that are self evident to the audience - I suppose in this respect the wikipedia computing project differs a little from other areas of Wikipedia that you may have contributed to in the past. Please do NOT respond here - respond in the relavent sections above. I say that because everything I've written here is written better, and with references, above - wheras what I've written here is merely a quick introduction. Arthur (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on CVSNT. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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) 19:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead too short / lead rewrite

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)

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)