Talk:BlueGriffon

Old unsectioned talk

Reference "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". Could this assertion be substantiated please? SC (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Both Glazou (talk · contribs) and 82.247.96.19 (talk · contribs) have identified themselves as Daniel Glazman, the author of the software and between the two of them, some spammy material was added.--Terrillja _talk 14:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Daniel clarified the results of the 2010 Open World Forum. Reference "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." Which parts are you referring to? SC (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I have removed the content that is clearly in violation, but I will have to take another look. --Terrillja _talk 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

all my additions to the page are strictly factual, and verifiable. There is not one single subjective piece of information added... Even w/o the wikipedia policies, I am myself reluctant to edit an article about my own work. But **you** are the one who requested more data and more references to stop deleting this page. Nobody stood up to add those data EVEN IF contributions to the deletion page were added, so I added them and they're not questionable. So please tell us what's the point ranting again? Just apply the policy for the policy w/o being even _a little bit_ pragmatic? Or do you have yourself some kind of conflict of interest and BlueGriffon itself represents a threat for you, your work, your employer, whatever? I just do not understand you at all, sorry. Glazou (Glazou) 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha, a new web editor isn't the slightest threat to what I do. Completely different fields. The problem is things like "It also offer support for CSS 2.1, and all parts of CSS 3 already implemented by Gecko without requiring deep technical knowledge of the underlying Web Standards." Factual, yes, promotional, yes. If it said "It also supports CSS 2.1, and all parts of CSS 3 already implemented by Gecko.", that's neutral and fine. Inserting a link to your blog where you have a 100% promotional post is a violation of WP:ELNO #11. If you want to be clear of COI, then the best way to do so is to propose changes on the talkpage (this page), otherwise any questionable edits could be construed as spamming, as well as to contribute to something other than articles you are related to, as you currently appear to be a WP:SPA. We have lots of articles on Mozilla projects, I'm sure that someone of your expertise could be a great asset in improving those.--Terrillja _talk 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You also might want to consider that making uncivil comments on external sites don't help your claim of genuinely wanting to work to improve the encyclopedia. Any other users that would like further clarification of this comment, feel free to email me.--Terrillja _talk 17:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrillja, you say "I believe that I have removed the content that is clearly in violation". If that is the case then the "close connection" banner can be removed. SC (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrillja, please do remove the close connection banner. Glazou (talk) 16:52, 09 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.96.19 (talk)

I'm BlueGriffon's author. Could someone please remove Mozilla as developer in the colophon? BlueGriffon uses Mozilla XULRunner but Mozilla (Corp or Foundation) is not at all a developer of this software. Thanks. Glazou (talk) 08:27, 03 February 2013 (UTC)

Malware section

Hello again. Still BlueGriffon's author here. There is an error in the "Malware" section. I never acknowledged the fact I included the Delta toolbar, this is totally wrong. I ack'd the fact I had a contract with a company bundling thirs-party software with the BlueGriffon installer. *They* controlled what was installed with BlueGriffon's installer, not me. I have decided to end that contract when I noticed silent installs and undesirable software like toolbars hard to delete or modifying user preferences in browsers. The installer for 1.7 is clean and has no third-party add-ons. I would appreciate if someone could tweak that section to reflect the above or even remove it since it's not longer relevant. Thanks. Glazou (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.118.184.70 (talk)

The malware section has no *reliable* sources so shouldn't be there anyway -Lopifalko (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

http://bluegriffon.org/pages/Download still says "How to remove Babylon if you need it", implying that the Babylon Toolbar is still incorporated in the installer. Is the Babylon Toolbar still included, or is this info there for removing it when installed by a previous versions of BlueGriffon? -Lopifalko (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is still there only for people who catch a 1.6.2 installer from an unofficial repository. I repeat : there is *no* add-on any more in the official current 1.7 installer. Glazou (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I can post a blog entry explaining that if you need a public reliable source... Let me know. Glazou (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.118.184.70 (talk)

I've removed the section for the reason I previously stated. A blog entry by yourself wouldn't count as a reliable source as you're the primary source. If I were you I'd post a blog entry anyway, announcing the good news, and make it clearer on your site that the Babylon instructions are for <=1.6.2. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Noted, thanks! Glazou (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.118.184.70 (talk)

Importance

Unless I'm missing something essential, the link at the top of this page to "the project's importance scale" is broken. Assuming the importance scale is more or less what it is for other applications programs, I believe this one should be set at MID. BlueGriffon is one of only two fairly usable free HTML editors, and is by far the better one. To paraphrase Lenin, Free has a quality all its own. In the forums I follow, BlueGriffon has an enlarging user base. Camdenmaine (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Change of license?

Version 1.8 was freeware. The current version 2.1.1 is not. Luis Dantas (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)