Talk:Swiftfox/Archive 1

Benchmark link

Benchmarks link was changed to a test on a forum that compared Swiftfox without extensions to other Browsers with extensions. This is an apples to oranges comparison. I reverted it back to a benchmark of freshly installed applications.Kilz 18:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The ubuntuforums benchmark link is valid as it compares Swiftfox without extensions to Konqueror and Epiphany (both without extensions). Just because that particular benchmark includes Firefox with extensions doesn't invalidate the comparison it provides between Swiftfox, Konqueror and Epiphany. —The precedingunsigned comment was added by 74.71.112.182 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The benchmark would need to be done by a reliable source. Otherwise it is just the say-so of some unknown forum poster and does not warrant an external link on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 21:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Swiftfox, on the Swiftfox site says its only a compile or build of the Firefox code, is it correct to call it an offshoot? The site doesnt say there are changes, but that the build is simply optimised to enable or disable things.Kilz 02:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed this to the correct term - build. Widefox 15:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kilz - your claim that Swiftfox is simply optimised by enabling or disabling things is not founded by the facts - as meticulously detailed now in the main article. Widefox 17:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Concrete example, see http://getswiftfox.com/builds/mozilla_1_8_branch/changelog for details of some patches applied. Widefox 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sugesting that because he went and got the patches and applied them he has forked the code? The patches are avilable from https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ an example of this is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&id=305185 Looking at post #23 on that page confirms that he is getting and installing already avilable patches. From MOZILLA. Kilz 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

don't understand your logic, or the repeat of this "fork" topic - the wording is "build" due to me changing it. Please drop undisputed issues like this! As to the fine points, of "fork" vs "build", that is out of the scope of this article, and more appropriate in the article about "fork"s. Widefox 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Free download

I've added back the fact that this is a free download. Please do not delete this again. I checked the Firefox article and the download and official site is listed multiply, so this is in keeping, especially as the box to the right does not reference Swiftfox, but Firefox.

But no other Custom Build or fork has this section. I don't think its right to compare this short article to the main firefox one. It is better to compare it to the other custom builds that have the same length. Either they all need to have download sections or this one needs to be removed. This whole page is starting to look like an advertisement for Swiftfox. That is not neutral, positive bias is still bias. This needs to be addressed. I will give you time to resopnd or edit. If not I feel so strongly that I will remove it.Kilz 14:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Optimisation

the build info indicates swiftfox is built with optimisation -O3, where normally -O2 is used. I added this back, and if you don't agree, please do not delete, but just mark with , as right now I can't see the build info on the redesigned Swiftfox site, or in the discussion group. Widefox 15:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the multiple download references take away the neutral point of view. It appears we are selling this version by pointing out that multiple versions are available in the opening, adding a download section that is in no other Firefox custom distribution article. Then adding multiple links to the Swiftfox main site. Yes that it can be downloaded is a fact. But is it necessary to constantly repeat it throughout the article. None of the other versions say they are avilable for download, the main Firefox page has information on how many times Firefox has been downloaded as part of over all web browser usage. Its also 7 times as big, and none of the other articles have links to the main site as references and external links. Maybe if it was only in one place it wouldn't look as bad in such a short article. How about just adding it can be downloaded to the top and remove the download section. Maybe we should also choose what section the main site link is in.Kilz 20:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already covered multiple refs above, in comparison with Firefox. Firefox mentions the word "free" very early on, and swiftfox not, so I think some balancing could be done, but for now it seems OK to me. I'd be more concerned about the claim that it is any faster, as that is the purpose! Certainly removing facts about free download, URLs, build info is not acceptable and I will revert immediately. Additionally, the only reason swiftfox is of interest is because it can be downloaded (as with any build), and there's a disambiguation to be done, due to the multiple versions multiplied by multiple processor types, which is again more pertinent to swiftfox than firefox. Whole point about this article is that it is a 3rd party build that can be downloaded. This article is a stub. Please continue your efforts to enlarge this article so that it reaches a more mature state. Widefox 02:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say remove the fact it can be downloaded, I said maybe we should think about editing out the multiple download references and duplicate information because of the size of this article. Firefox says it a few times but its 7 times the size. I placed that it can be downloaded in the beginning and removed the duplicate information. I'm still not sure we should have a link to the Swiftfox in References and External links. It just doesn't look right. Kilz 02:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Did some editing, I noticed that you are asking for citations on Font rendering. Added links to pages that explain exactly what the engines improve, and that pango improves non English fonts. That freetype2 is a default of enabling gtk2 toolkit on a mozilla page. Also a link Swiftfox to a build summary that shows they are disabled. But I do think we need citations that Swiftfox starts faster from a neutral party, and that 03 is in fact a higher compiler optimization and what that means, all I can find is that its different. Kilz 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

please discuss and reach consensus with these controversial edits. I include some pointers and discussion below. Widefox 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have given citations for this point. I removed the citation request. Widefox 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

additionally, please could I ask you to keep to the topic indicated in the section heading, or start a new one, makes it a lot easier to discuss individual points, for more help on this, checkout the guidelines. thanks Widefox 15:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as an information point, -O3 is the highest optimisation level on gcc. On some other compilers I've used -for example Tru64 (now called HPUX I guess), they had levels up to -O5. Normally the level is just a sort of macro for enabling more optimisations, it doesn't mean that Tru64 -O5 is better than gcc -O3. I gave a ref in the other discussion of the point about -O3 being higher than -O2, but I'm including this here to finished off this section. Widefox 19:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

controversial edits

I had to revert the article, and I have justified that in the edit comment, and in more detail here...

I'm pasting in some out-takes to save them.

A faster startup time, together with a small speedup (1.7%) has been reported.

this is not needed - it is already referenced -> removed

• by removing pango layout and text rendering support. This can result in lower quality text with some fonts. It can also cause problems with fonts used in languages other than English.
• by removing Freetype2 font rendering support, a default of the GTK2 toolkit that is enabled. This can result in lower quality text with some fonts. + * by removing Freetype2 font rendering support, a default

please use {{cite web}} - for style see the reference already using cite web in the article.

Also, the changes to the article did not qualify the criticism "quality", or detail which aspects are affected, or indicate where that information is.

licensing - please do not revert my edit about licensing - you wording highlights what the licensing is NOT, not what it is, so is less clear. This is the second time I have said this. Please justify your reasoning here before re-inserting.

number of references to downloads - I don't understand what you mean about there being too many - you have just added one more at the top, while removing the clear section at the bottom. Also, just because the article is a stub, doesn't mean that multiple references to download should be deleted. I have already justified and compared with Firefox. Disambiguating is important due to the total number of downloads available (more than Firefox), so your overall aim does not seem in keeping with the needs of the article. Widefox 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to prove that it is not a free license one has to understand what a free license is. The link explains that if some things are removed the license is non free. Swiftfox has taken a free application and licensed it under a non free license. Why is it conciderd non free is the reason its linked. Second, I gave more than enough info on the fact that the font rendering engines were removed and what they do. Also what types of fonts they affect. You changed all that information. I then removed duplicate information by adding download to the statment above. IMHO we dont need that things are avilable, then they can be downloaded. This line "Several versions of Swiftfox are available for specific types of microprocessor architecture." and this line"It is available as a free download for several architectures, covering both Intel and AMD processors, and several versions of Firefox." are the same thing. This is in no other firefox custom build page on wiikipedia. You keep changing my edits. It does not appear we can reach agreement. Next, there is no proof that Swiftfox starts faster. The benchmarks deal with rendering. Not start up times. There is no proof it starts faster. The references to Swiftfox forums and its site should be backed up by an Independent secondary source reliable source

It you intend to use Firefox benchmarks for Swiftfox, expect the free software license to be replaced. I discussed why I removed the duplicate line above.

It is conventional practice to sign your comments. I do not fully understand what you mean here. Widefox 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If you expect me to discuss why something is changed. I expect the same in return. Simply changing my edits will force me to revert them. Kilz 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you have an objection to Swiftfox - in particular it's licensing. If others feel that way, so that you can find a reference, you might want to add that into the article. Currently, I consider that your changes just detract from the article with your point of view (POV). Find some references and add it in, the article is small! Please could you look at wikipedia guidance on POV and original research though.

Please refrain from repeatedly changing a referenced and valid licensing statement, without discussing it here, as I have done. Also, you have changed spelling from British to American (licence, license), which according to guidelines is questionable in itself - given that I am the main author now (see guidelines on spelling), but the thing is, it's only used inside markup, so it doesn't really matter, does it? Please could you provide more edit summary (as per guidelines) - 2 of the last few were blank. I would prefer if you made some attempt to discuss before going any further, as is considered best practice in this circumstance. Please consider what I am saying here, as I will only revert your edit 1 more time before before I consider that I've come up against the 3 revert limit, and will be forced to escalate. Widefox 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Then escalate. I was working on this article before you got here. How did you become the main author? You have changed things without taking one thing I have said into concideration or discussing it with me. Deleted and changed what I added without one discussion. But you expect me to clear everything with you. My point of view is the truth. The license is non free, I am suprised you dont see it as you use Debian. Maybe you dont think that informattion is important, but I do. You are pusing your point of view that its free as in cost, more than free as in freedom. I linked to a article on wikipedia (Free Software License) explaining why its non free as in freedom and you remove it. I added information to show the license is different than every other Firefox fork or build. Even the sorce of the code (Firefox) and you remove it. But add references to speed that dont even apply because they didnt benchmark Swiftfox. You have made it into an advertisment, not reference. You are more interested in showing its avilable for download and linking to its download page. Not just once but mutiple times in a very short article. That in my opinion is selling it. You have a POV problem. Kilz 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently merging your refs, with the article. Just for your information, I fully understand your enthusiasm for free software. I've been using Linux over 10 years, and as you might have seen on my userpage, I work on open-source projects, so I do understand where you are coming from. It's just that you appear to be new around here, and I've found that things go much smoother on wikipedia if you talk through controversial edits to reach consensus beforehand, and not assume the worst. I think your point about licensing is valid, and I've already said, find a ref and add it in. That doesn't mean that the whole article should be a licensing issue. Another question - do you know how to get to your talk page? You didn't reply to any of the points there, that I made to discuss things. Widefox 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Using Firefox benchmarks

I have steped back from this article. I have only eddited things you have asked (which?) to. But I do have some concerns on other areas. 1. I still see no independant reference that Swiftfox starts faster than Firefox. I feel we need some indepandant conformation of this from a site other than Swiftfox, or its forum. I cited reliable source, specificly the Independent secondary source section, above. Please respond to this or add another site with benchmarks as to start up. 2. I think Free in the download section needs to be qualified. It is directly over the license section that says its non-free. Maybe "No cost" would fit better. At present I am gathering citations as to the licenses that the other forks are released under. So far no other fork is restricted. Kilz 03:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is faulty reasoning to me.
" A different comparison between Firefox and other browsers has also been done,allowing an indication of the absolute speed of Swiftfox:"
We cant compare Swiftfox to other browsers based on what Firefox has done. For all we know it could be slower in those areas than Firefox. Swiftfox does not use the Firefox binaries in any way. This is why the benchmarks that list Firefox against other browsers is inappropriate to use when suggesting Swiftfox is just as fast. So what basis are you using the above quote and information? I feel it needs to be removed as it has no Swiftfox information. I will give you time to respond or remove it. Kilz 13:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

many points. General status comment - this article is far better reff'ed than the other 3rd party builds, and insertion of more licensing issues starts to look like political POV (these issues are under Political and not Licensing in the Firefox article) as is the use of "non-free" generally associated with Debian politics (and politics are best kept to a minimum - this is no place for political activism according to wikipedia guidelines). You do realise that prominently, Firefox has "free" listed. IMHO, that is more questionable than the (now removed) statements here, due to prominence. OK, more licensing issues are great (IMHO) as long as there are references - as I encouraged before. Currently I have no evidence that the authors claim is not to be taken at face value. My opinion is that 3rd party builds are a trust issue, not a licensing issue, but that's my opinion, that if I felt more strongly, I might go and find refs of browser build abuse (as is popular with toolbars). I noticed he's put up Debian binaries BTW. OK, now speed test reference - my recollection is that it mentions faster startup. The way to go is just to compare binary sizes, this being primarily the reason. Binary size should go in, especially in light of lack of hard benchmarking. A ref for that would be best, but can be done by reffing the two download locations. 1.5.0.7 is the one to go for. The faulty reasoning, is not faulty, and the topic is central to the reason to download swiftfox. It was however badly worded in the early hours! I've changed it now, with disambiguation to the larger issues and more performance issues, and benchmarking. As you say, we cannot draw a direct comparison for swiftfox vs. opera etc, but for ballpark reasoning FF vs SF, then FF vs. Opera it has limited merit. Note that at the big speedtest reference, they test an early FF 2.0, and I believe a pre 1.5, so it's not definitive at all either. The author of that has said he will update for FF 2.0. removal of these indications of absolute rank in terms of speed would seem counter-productive, given this is a speed issue. Widefox 16:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you would perfer proprietary software instead, maybe we should change it. I strongly believe that if speed claims cant be proved by direct links and evidance that it should be removed untill we find such evidance. It apears we are writing an advertisment not information. "ballpark reasoning" cant be proved. Kilz 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is still on the article. It should not be. It doesnt contain any Swiftfox data. It simply does not belong. I am thinking about placing a content tag on it. Kilz 04:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Firefox slow startup is referenced in this section, and shown to be fixed in the Swiftfox part. Both are needed and referenced. The tag is without reason. Widefox 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Relivance tag

I have discussed the use of Firefox benchmarks over and over, yet they remain. I totaly believe that the information should not be included because it does not contain any Swiftfox data at all. The section should be removed or shown why it should be on the page.Kilz 19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The tag is without reason. See reason above. Widefox 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Info Box

Swiftfox is not an extension it is a build. It is wrong to list it as a extension. I corrected this and it was reverted. I will correct this again. Respond here before reverting it again. Kilz 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

just typo. Fixed.Widefox 16:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

was merge issue, not a revert due to editing at same time - my fault though. only one to slip through. Widefox 16:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of Swiftfox site as a reference, Positive bias problem

As I understand the reliable sourcepage. We should use Independent secondary source if we use any citations from the site/project we are describing/writing about. I notice we have a lot of references that go directly back to the Swiftfox site, and to its forum. Without any neutral source listed. As I was asked to discuss things I see as problems before editing them, I am posting this before removing the references. Bias, even a positive bias is to be avoided as I understand it. Please provide a link that says otherwise, or provide the neutral citations. Kilz 16:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

please be explicit - which bias do you suspect? also which refs do you object to. citing technical docs is normal. Knowing that you might object to providing a link to Swiftfox, I've already refrained from adding a ref to the "lack of a claim" of "speedup". I'm already over the line in your direction. I detect from your comments that you have a strong opposition to the Swiftfox licensing terms. Pushing that harder will only force me to consider the article Debian "non-free" political POV. Have you tried emailing the author to complain? Is there an article where non-free software can be incorporated. I just don't agree this is a place for activism. I've provided an alternative section now, as I thought that might alleviate this angle you are coming from. Widefox 16:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

for example see Intel. You kind of giving me a hard time here. I have wide interests - just look at my edits. Nobody has ever claimed that I am pushing some POV, so I would like you to be explicit. Just for the record, I have no affiliation with Swiftfox, Fasterfox (although I have contributed code/ideas, so I am an expert in browser speedup. I also have no affiliate with any company, and need the speedup due to not having enough CPU!). Widefox 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You may not have a personal bias, but the Swiftfox website and Forums will defiantly be pro Swiftfox. Anything they claim should be backed up by a 3rd party imho. Specifically in the optimizations we have 2 links to the Swiftfox forums. Taking them at face value that they improve things is "iffy". I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just want the page to be as accurate as possible. Especially in speed claims.
If you prefer proprietary over non-free so it isn't political that's ok with me. But Jason, the builder of Swiftfox has created .deb files (for Debian, spcificly listed on the main Swiftfox page)then restricted freedom by a license in the file. By doing so he has invited the free/non free issue. This isn't like he was making rpm's and didn't expect Debian to point out it isn't free. Yes I have written him and he just got more crazy, by adding the tainted versions line to the license. But users of Debian (and derivatives)deserve to know that they may be installing non-free or proprietary software since its targeted to them. Kilz 18:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you've clarified that, thankyou.

If I understand which links you mean, it's only technical details - build info. I already detailed how to check that yourself to back it up (BTW installing MR Tech About:about 2.2 will give you a menu item for easy access to those things). In which way do we have to go further?

Erm, just as comparison, Madfox doesn't even have a single ref. According to the rules, it could be deleted! We've got 17 now! We do not follow the rules to the letter, else wikipedia would get small! I think a sitting back and congratulating ourselves is in order! This is the first article you've worked on right? could you do an A-B comparison at this point with some others of similar stature. The main advertising aspect comes from that darn Firefox TOC, which will send people there, especially with a name like Swiftfox!....

• IF* I was going to play devils advocate (which I do to ensure POV), and take your anti "non-free" stance, the TOC would be the key to it all, in terms of eyeballs, and not refs backing up easily verifiable tech documents. As you can see, I've removed the TOC where I can for legal issues (it's come back 2x already). For that legal issue, I don't think any of the 3rd party builds should be listing in the same box as Firefox. It is not up to me to pursue my licensing beliefs here, even though I have worked on the Linux kernel, and am an extensive open source contributor. That is separate. It is up to the reader of wikipedia, and the user of the software. In the end, all our words will be edited away!

In an ideal world, we should all run Gentoo, as it is true to Unix / open-source tradition. No hidden gotchas there. That's what I learnt in the 80s. But that's just my POV. I'm a Kanotix user myself, but there's no userbox for it, so I list it as Knoppix. I guess you run Debian (Kanotix is 100% Debian).

Speed claim - they don't make one! Of course, if they called it Slowfox, nobody would download it. Interesting, as I've put in the article. They just claim "optimization". FYI I've heard of significant MMX/SSE speedups by using a patch set by mmoy (It's only for Windows). In my experience, manual optimisation like that is way more effective (typically >10-20% faster) than relying on the compiler (~same unless trivial case, sometimes slower), like swiftfox folk do. I'd be interesting to see a build with an Intel compiler though. It produces significantly faster binaries.

I cannot and will not comment on Jason as I have never met him, emailed him (as far as I can remember), although I have nudged him for new builds, due to using FF 2.0 nightly builds. I also use FF official nightly builds, and so remain agnostic when it comes to browsers. They both have imperfect licences. Widefox 19:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't run Debian, I run Ubuntu. But its a Debian derivative that strives to using free and open source software. There are a few of us on the Ubuntu forums who oppose non free software. I also fully agree with the 4 basic freedoms as defined by the fsf. Jason has tried to stop me from telling people Swiftfox is non-free. I'm also the person he changed the license from MPL to proprietary to stop me making 64bit deb files for the amd64 version of Ubuntu. So that it wouldn't lower the clicks he gets from his google adds. I think I know how unethical he is, and know he will lie to win. I have tried to limit my opinions of him, and just stick to the facts. That's also why I stepped back. Personaly I use Iceweasel :) Kilz 20:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know Ubuntu (mainly Kubuntu). I don't understand the Swiftfox licence issue for amd64. You're compiling yourself, right? I suppose it's the artwork? (I suggest we continue this thread on your or my userpage though... maybe yours? Widefox 21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Firefox TOC

I see the Firefox TOC is back! Please, before adding this back in, please see the discussion at the Template_talk:Firefox_TOC. Please, someone just create a 3rd party build TOC as someone else suggested so that 1. we get no legal issues 2. the Firefox TOC does not come back. Please direct all talk to that page, unless specifically Swiftfox related. Widefox 17:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I did that, the TOC is included in the rest of the forks with no problem, see Template talk:Firefox TOC for relevant discussion. To prevent edit wars, I'm not reinserting TOC. Feureau 19:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The TOC has been removed from the main Firefox article (by another editor), so it now is obsolete as a Firefox TOC. ...so I recycled it as a Firefox Community TOC. It's now back on the main article, but in the appropriate section, and I've beautified the history and features articles to cope with the change. Result - the new TOC has been included again. Widefox 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problem - negative bias due to Debian supporter activism

Since I am by a rule not alowed to add it to the topic.

• Overemphasis of negative aspects
• usage of Debian wording for licensing issues "non-free" instead of arguably more correct "freeware"
• overemphasised "Debian POV", aggravated by personal redistribution issue between the Swiftfox developer and a Debian builder.

The repeated inclusion of negative and Debian POV to this article is not acceptable. I'm getting tired of having to rebalance what isn't Debian software, from the Debian POV. I am a Debian user and contributor myself (as stated on my user page), but just find it slightly overemphasised! There is a wider context that wikipedia must adhere to, according to WP:NPOV . Widefox 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On the main page of Swiftfox is " I have added deb files for Debian. If you are using Debian then you will probably find this useful. Existing Firefox plugins should work without needing to do anything special." This application is targeted at Debian users. Doing so makes the information of it being free or non free important. This article reads like a advertisment. It has a positive bias taking things on the Swiftfox site at face value without 3rd party references to back up the claims. One of these is 03 optimization being a "higher" optimization. I can find no reference that says its higher or lower, or exactly what it does.Kilz 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If the test data isnt good enough to give numbers. It isnt good enough to give percents, or perceptions of speed. They will be removed also. Kilz 16:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

you have inserted redundant information, then removed all information. Widefox 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As for overemphasised, it was on the page in one place. How can it be overemphasised? That Jason took a free application and placed it under a non-free license is factual information. Kilz 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit is not justified by the facts about compiler optimization:

• I quote from another source, "high level of optimization is used, like the -O3 setting. " http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/optimization.txt
• For background info (but nothing on the levels, as they are compiler specific - gcc in this case) see Compiler optimization for info on this.
• admittedly compiler flags / optimization levels are specialist, but you have said you compile 64bit for Debian, so you must know your way around gcc
• Your level of insistence for references for almost every fact, word and concept for this article, and dismissing technical details from the primary source (the Swiftfox site) is not reasonable or fair c.f. that on IceWeasel, or required by the guidelines. Unfortunately, how can I assume any good faith, so am forced to conclude that this is a vengeful edit, as you have threatened before with licensing issues, instigated because of my claim that you have a Debian POV (above, where I did not mention your name), with listing the details of your Debian build dispute with the Swiftfox author. The article is suffering as a result, and I consider your edits as POV bordering on vandalism due to the vengeful nature. I ask you to put aside your personal grievance with the author (the comments you have made go against WP:NPA), and keep contributing from a more NPOV. Considering you have personal gripes with him, are you sure you want to be editing an article about his software at all, so that you do not aggravate the situation, and make Debian work more difficult? Widefox 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts. What you are doing is whitewashing this page so that it looks like an advertisement. I am beginning to believe you have a positive bias because you continually want to dismiss anything that may paint the software in a negative light. Seeing that your nickname is the name of a Firefox variation, that you have admitted exchanging emails with Jason Halme, That you refuse to give 3rd party references when clearly required by the NPOV page it makes me question it all the more. The word higher was removed because I had asked for the reference and you had not referenced it. To date the reference is not in place. I have compiled things, but that is mostly ./configure, and make, and make install. I have no pov problem, and as soon as you cast away the positive bias we can get back to work. An example of positive bias is the Benchmarks. A benchmark is available. You list it as not "definitive". You have left 1.7% but refuse to use the actual difference of .12 of a second. You leave it starts faster from the same benchmark. Either its not definitive and nothing is posted or the results of .12 are replaced. Speaking of Debian. I don't run it. I run Ubuntu. But the Swiftfox main page lists .deb files and telling Debian users to use them. All the while the compiler has taken the free source and compiled it then changed the license into Non-free. You keep removing the notations that the software is non free. That is another positive bias. It is a fact that it is targeted at Debian users, its a fact the software license was changed to non free. Why do you keep removing the facts? I will not stop seeing that the truth is told.Kilz 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I also dont believe firefox benchmarks have any place on the Swiftfox page. They need to be removed. Swiftfox does not use any Firefox binaries. Its test resluts can not apply to Swiftfox. As for requiring references on facts. I seem to remember you doing exactly the same thing for everything I added to this page.Kilz 01:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please point to where I said I've emailed the author of Swiftfox - Jason Halme. The words are not above. I suggest you look at your claim, look at the facts, and then write something friendly. FYI, you will find my couple of build requests in the firefox 3rd party forum, that is not email, and is public for you to checkout. Then, and only then, I shall reply to your other remarks, as I'll be willing to work with you on the wording. Both of us have no other choice anyway. Widefox 02:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to make an apology. I may have misread this line to think you had emailed him for nightlies. I am sorry for posting that you had emailed him if this line reads you have not.
"I cannot and will not comment on Jason as I have never met him, emailed him (as far as I can remember), although I have nudged him for new builds, due to using FF 2.0 nightly builds. I also use FF official nightly builds, and so remain agnostic when it comes to browsers. They both have imperfect licences. Widefox 19:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)"
Rereading it shows you were saying you havent emailed him.
But I will not see things whitewashed over. I will not see facts that may show a negitive light on any article candy coated. Kilz 03:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I plan on editing this page this evening to remove the positive spin placed on everything if this discussion has stalled. Kilz 18:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Kilz, thank you for apologising. What facts are you not happy with? I've read the above, and:

• 3rd party refs - already discussed - have you see that (e.g. Intel)?
• "higher" - dito, independent ref produced - did you read that?
• 1. % vs. 2. % and absolute . 2. is redundant. - already discussed - did you see that?
• as to cutting speed test completely. It is a valid, 3rd party ref, and the only ref we have. We have said it is not perfect. We have watered it down as far as possible. Because we have said that it is not authoritative, we have actually justified it's inclusion with that proviso, not the opposite.

Conclusion - I see no unanswered issues

Here's my list of unsubstantiated claims that are currently in the article, and need fixing, hence Debian POV activism:

• software advertising - what is the reason - please provide, else this is FUD and must be removed. I leave it to you to remove, being as I was the one to teach you it.
• it is the only freeware with restricted distribution. This may be true (I do not know), but you have provided 4 refs, but there are more than 4 3rd party builds! In fact, you have to realise that there are very many more 3rd party builds (mmoy, etc). To claim Swiftfox is the only one is unproven, and difficult because you cannot miss a single one out, in all languages, in the world. To make that claim, you will logically have to prove that you have checked all, and I don't know how you can do that, just the major ones you find in English! Seems you are going out of your way to prove something unprovable...
• obsession over licence issue - multiple refs (see above)
• general negative tone to the removal of pango etc. You do realise that "places" was also removed in the early 2.0 series, which also helped, and "places" was dropped too. Do you have refs to prove the "lower quality" for the general user in swiftfox "This can result in lower qual". If there is no ref saying omission in swiftfox causes some "lower quality", then it is original research WP:NOR, and must be removed

Conclusion - unsubstantiated banner needs removing, some minor NPOV issues, but nothing major in the current article

Personal Issues (that are separate from the real issues of the article)

• You appear to me, to be questioning the idea about any sort of speed gain, and trying to deny any reported speed gains. OK, you have the right to question, but this is a logically inconsistent POV for you to take:
  • You said yourself, you want to use this software!

I can only conclude that any negative comments are not coming from your appreciation of the facts, but from annoyance about not being able to redistribute the binary, and frustration that a "non-free" in Debian speak licence has been put there. Swiftfox is good enough for you, but not after he stopped you!

• So, I've been teaching you these tags, and I told you that I'll teach you, but with the proviso that you should use them wisely, and probably get some more editing and experience before using such things, so I do not regret it. A day or so later you put it up here! What am I meant to think about what you said?)
• You clearly are trying to discredit the software with your factually incorrect view on
  • -O3 vs -O2 (both double reff'ed!)
  • "higher" (I have provided ref, you need to look over it again if you have just not need the ref!)
  • and attempted removal of all 3 benchmarks
    • 1st benchmark removal done (as listed above). This was justified, although there was some resistance from another editor (not me).
    • 2nd The only OK benchmark
    • 3rd (Firefox) - context of browser speeds.
• claim that Swiftfox is just a recompile - no code is changed. This is not true - see article with refs
• You are editing from "too close to the subject" - in your own words, you have said that he has changed the licence terms because of your query.
• is again the same "too close" if you build Debian/Ubuntu Swiftfox, and IceWeasel. In contrast, I have never done either.
• You are a new editor, and you only appear to edit this and IceWeasel (which are the same issue), so you are editing on a sort of single issue (note that in comparison, I have done edits to Firefox, and lots of different fields, just in contrast, not to say I know what I'm talking about!)
• You have made false claims about me, which you then went on and tried to link me in with the author, by using the fact that my Username is Widefox and the software Swiftfox. This is despite the fact that you know I'm a Debian user myself, an OSS contributor, a non commercial agent, a browser specialist, am not related to Swiftfox and have never emailed or contacted the author, and have made repeated attempts to try to buddy you!
  • assume good faith (as per guidelines)
• I have accepted you apology which was just a misunderstanding. I fear this happening again
• you have changed the heading title of this section, which is against the rules
• you did not sign that change, which is against the etiquette
• I have asked you to create separate headings for issues, and enforce some discipline (so that this sort of mega-thread does not develop again)
• I think the fact that you have interacted with the software author - I do not know, and do not want to know the details - means that if I were you, I would not get involved further with his software or allegations about "quality" with it here on wikipedia.

Conclusion - 3rd party opinion, or intervention, in order to ensure 1. NPOV, 2. no aggravation of whatever the situation is

Going Forward

• Please reply here before putting back in your controversial edits, suggest in separate sections

Widefox 04:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I waited for your reply. I am not going to wait forever 24 hours after my last reply with no reply from you was long enough to wait imho. Im not going to get into a fight now over things I have already changed. This last post of yours is imho an attempt to stop the truth from the article.

3rd party refs - already discussed - have you see that (e.g. Intel)?

Anything that uses a reference to the Swiftfox site or forum should have a neutral 3rd party ref to back it up. That's from the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page.

Have you seen Intel or not?, you are a evading question. Only by replying to my question and reasoning about that, and not merely restating your reading of the rules. You force me to repeat - we are only talking about ref for highly technical information, that would only be possible to get from the originator. The name Swiftfox comes from them, but we do not have to get a 3rd party reference to know that. Please check Intel and reply. It appears you do not wish to participate in reaching consensus, which is against the guideline WP:CON

as to cutting speed test completely. It is a valid, 3rd party ref, and the only ref we have. We have said it is not perfect. We have watered it down as far as possible. Because we have said that it is not authoritative, we have actually justified it's inclusion with that proviso, not the opposite.

Then the exact difference can be given, not a percent. The percent doesn't give what its a percent of. If you want to say its 1.7% of 4.79 seconds go for it.

1. Redundant info. I think the burden is on you, to reason why redundant information should be inserted.

2. The reasoning why to include % and not absolute value is standard practice - because they are more concise - no units needed, no numerator and denominator. Additionally, % is a scalable item, so results are easily extrapolated.

3. Paucity of info in this particular test saying the conditions etc, so best to avoid going into too much detail

4. Already said it's not authoritative, so not need to be over explicit.

Please answer each of these 4.

You have missed these 2 points, so I list them again, Please reply to both:Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

1. "higher" - dito, independent ref produced - did you read that?Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

2. as to cutting speed test completely. It is a valid, 3rd party ref, and the only ref we have. We have said it is not perfect. We have watered it down as far as possible. Because we have said that it is not authoritative, we have actually justified it's inclusion with that proviso, not the opposite.Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my previous Conclusion - I see no unanswered issues Widefox 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's my list of unsubstantiated claims that are currently in the article, and need fixing, hence Debian POV activism:

• software advertising - what is the reason - please provide, else this is FUD and must be removed. I leave it to you to remove, being as I was the one to teach you it.

As I understand NPOV the article we create should be factual have no bias. Either positive or negative. The Swiftfox article as you continued to change it looked like you were trying to paint everything as good as it could be with no negative facts. Something commonly done in advertisements. The page looked like it was being sold.

You have no facts/reason in your claim there, please restate. As a courtesy, I shall leave the banner there until you have stated your claim. I do consider that you have failed to state a reason though, so you must appreciate that I am being very patient. Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

it is the only freeware with restricted distribution. This may be true (I do not know), but you have provided 4 refs, but there are more than 4 3rd party builds! In fact, you have to realize that there are very many more 3rd party builds (mmoy, etc). To claim Swiftfox is the only one is unproven, and difficult because you cannot miss a single one out, in all languages, in the world. To make that claim, you will logically have to prove that you have checked all, and I don't know how you can do that, just the major ones you find in English! Seems you are going out of your way to prove something unprovable...

I tried to point out that the source code was free. The application it was built on was free to distribute. That there were already things in place that stopped someone from changing the application and redistributing it. You sectioned that off as a Firefox section and completely changed the reasoning behind it. Perhaps we can change that to "build" as Swiftfox to my knowledge is the only binary build of firefox. All others are forks.

with respect, you have not answered the question. I repeat, your claim is "only distribution". Please provide a ref saying such, else tell me it is common knowledge, or other reason, else this is original research and according to the rules should be removed. A mere listing of the facts of licensing covers the facts, without additional, unsubstantiated claims. Of course, I must add that you are hiding the fact that you should be listed, as someone who has caused this change of licensing, and then you would be excluded from being able to edit the article, as it would be "too close to the subject". I would prefer to just not go there, wouldn't you? Also, I am not willing to get involved in licensing discussions with you, or be dragged into discussion about the author. I have also said that if you find 3rd party refs to backup your dispute with the author, then someone else, say me, could insert that into the article. You could not, due to "too close" IMHO. Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

obsession over license issue - multiple refs (see above)

You were to fast to revert the last edit. I did not put non-free in but proprietary. Over and over I have suggested we stay away from free in either direction. You kept putting "free" back in. I suggest we go with the neutral "proprietary" term. Instead of calling it free which can have multiple meanings. Please check non-free, it is a Debian term (largely). This is my point about Debian POV. I have to say, I am not happy with "freeware", as it's an umbrella term, and maybe outdated, but gives the correct factual impression that it is free to download, but is proprietary. To help this, I have reformatted the "freeware" page, just in case folk are curious. I have also created "freeware isn't "free software". You must see that I agree with your POV, but I just will not let that affect the article! Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

general negative tone to the removal of pango etc. You do realize that "places" was also removed in the early 2.0 series, which also helped, and "places" was dropped too. Do you have refs to prove the "lower quality" for the general user in swiftfox "This can result in lower qual". If there is no ref saying omission in swiftfox causes some "lower quality", then it is original research, and must be removed

I sugest you read the reference to what pango does. I will readd http://people.redhat.com/otaylor/pango-mirror/design.shtml that was removed before by you in at 13:49, 13 October 2006. From the page "Quality. Subject to the rendering system employed, the goal of Pango is not just legible rendering, but high-quality, correct rendering." So removing pango will effect quality.

I know what Pango is. I quote from your ref:

"Many features that, for western text are only of interest for high-quality typography, such as ligatures, and the selection of alternate glyphs for a character, are vital for rendering non-western languages."

So I conclude your claim is arguably not justified for general use, hence a more optional component, wouldn't you say? But, back to the point - the burden is on you to justify your claim (and not whether I understand it), and qualify the circumstances where it could affect "quality", or whatever your claim is, else it is a general FUD argument. Best would be a ref saying this is a problem in swiftfox, but lesser ref about it being a quality problem in any browser would be OK for me. You do realise that by referring to the technology provider, you are breaking your own rule that you complained about above! I am more tolerant and will accept this though, but you needed to point that out.

I also repeat, that your general line of attack that the quality is affected, does not fit with your desire to use the software, so is like below, inconsistent. I repeat, it appears to me that you are stuck on pointing out potential problems, without qualifying how they would not actually affect the end-user, so it is in fact an unbalanced appraisal IMHO, and I consider it goes against WP:NPOV.

I conclude - this is a valid optimisation that has minimal impact on users of Western texts, but that is my opinion. I think the current working is out of line with this, and must be changed. Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my conclusion from previously Conclusion - unsubstantiated banner needs removing, some WP:NPOV issues, but nothing major in the current article Widefox 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Personal Issues (that are separate from the real issues of the article)

• You appear to me, to be questioning the idea about any sort of speed gain, and trying to deny any reported speed gains. OK, you have the right to question, but this is a logically inconsistent POV for you to take:"

No I question why we cant have the exact difference between the 2 32bit results on the page. You have questioned the results by calling them not "definitive". If they are not "definitive" then they shouldnt be usd in any form. If they are usable they should be in as exact a form as we can make it. Second since Firefox and Swiftfox use different binaries we cant compair other applications against each of them seperatly and then use it if the other was not also tested against the same applications.

Evading question about denying verified facts, and POV (going against WP:NPOV). Absolute values vs % already covered above. Quoting absolutes is more detailed, and the way you did it was redundant and without the context. Either a conclusion or go into more details. If you want to put the whole context in, I think it will be too much. See Firefox for what I mean, although if you want to put whole test context in that's fine with me - swiftfox has got space and reason for more speed info. I'm more concerned about lack of speed testing of swiftfox for difference platforms, as that is a variable not investigated by any test I have seem. Really not that big a thing for me, but finding or asking the bigger speedtest people for a benchmark be a more fruitful way to the truth, and then we'd have some better details to include.

**You said yourself, you want to use this software!

I dont remember saying that.

You told me you were compiling debs, and you have a 64bit machine, and when you informed him, he changed the licence to stop you, and after that - now - being as you generally don't want to run any "non-free" if you can help it, you now don't, I suppose, but the turnaround has clearly motivated you enough to make you an activist on this single issue. Nothing wrong with that, but not inside wikipedia! In repeat, in comparison with my editing here, you seem to be stuck on this single issue, right from account creation. Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I can only conclude that any negative comments are not coming from your appreciation of the facts, but from annoyance about not being able to redistribute the binary, and frustration that a "non-free" in Debian speak licence has been put there. Swiftfox is good enough for you, but not after he stopped you!

I want to warn any Debian user that reads this article that the .debs that are on the Swiftfox site may not be free software, but are non-free. In the edit you just reverted I did not use the term non-free. But I did note it was against the DFSG in case any Debian user should read the article. You reverted the warning. Debian users have a right to know if the software aimed at them is non-free should they read this article.

Your personal warning has no place here, it is against WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV and additionally has the following factual problems:

If that is your main beef, please put it in! I encouraged you to insert uncontroversial things about licensing. You do realise that Debian do provide "non-free" too in the "non-free" section. Also, your level of Debian activism goes outside the bounds of Debian, and is at odds with the mission of Debian http://www.debian.org/social_contract

"We will not object to non-free works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to charge a fee to people who create or use such works. "

It appears that the line you are taking is more of your own personal level, and not of Debian (which I do personally agree with, but my opinion is not important). FYI, I therefore conclude that the trouble you are causing here is against the goals of Debian. it is against WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV

*So, I've been teaching you these tags, and I told you that I'll teach you, but with the proviso that you should use them wisely, and probably get some more editing and experience before using such things, so I do not regret it. A day or so later you put it up here! What am I meant to think about what you said?)

I did use it as I understand its use. As I understand NPOV the article we create should be factual have no bias. Either positive or negitive. The Swiftfox article as you continued to change it looked like you were trying to paint everything as good as it could be with no negitive facts. Something commonly done in advertisements. The page looked like you were selling it.

Again, an unspecified bias. Either specify what it is, or remove your claim, sir! unspecified use of WP:TD, and against WP:NPOV, WP:CON at least until evidence provided

You avoided my point here too (WP:CON)... I assumed good faith and you left a distinct impression on me - I said at the time of showing you these things that you should use them wisely, so I wouldn't regret telling you - specifically getting more general editing experience. Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You clearly are trying to discredit the software with your factually incorrect view on

1. * -O3 vs -O2 (both double reff'ed!)

2. * "higher" (I have provided ref, you need to look over it again if you have just not need the ref!)

Once you provide the link from above on this page that shows its a higher level I have no problem with it. The problem is that I asked over and over for the reference. Sadly its still not in place.

1. you have not answered (I numbered them above.) continued failure to not answer I will conclude against WP:CON Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

2. You are happy knowing now that "higher" is correct terminology as hinted to by the numbers 2 and 3, and I have provided a reference. I will not insert a ref stating this correct terminology, or that 3 is "higher" than 2. I am not an ass! I conclude that the matter is definitively, and mathematically proven to be over, and will not visit this issue again. Your refusal to accept these referenced facts is against WP:NPOV, and WP:CON Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

and attempted removal of all 3 benchmarks

* 1st benchmark removal done (as listed above). This was justified, although there was some resistance from another editor (not me). * 2nd The only OK benchmark

* 3rd (Firefox) - context of browser speeds.

I have already gone over this above but I will one more time. You seem to want to only put 1.7%. But 1.7% tells us nothing. 1.7% of what? You remove my edit when I try to clarify it. You call the benchmark non definitive. Well if it isn't definitive lets remove it all. Also you cant compare apples to oranges. Swiftfox and Firefox are not the same binaries. Swiftfox wasn't in the firefox test you site. The APC article mixes 64bit and 32bit versions. You cant use that.

1. not answered Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

2. % tells us something, see argument above. I do not understand your whole attack on %s, they are quite normal! Also, your criticism is not based on the wording of the article - I quote "% (webpage rendering)". I conclude invalid.

You have provided no justification to remove this benchmark, so I am forced to classify any wilful removal as denial of facts, and as such against WP:CON. Of course, please continue to justify this, if you still have unlisted facts or more references casting doubt on the test. Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

3. please give some evidence as to why this other test is not good context. I repeat, we are not comparing results directly, but just to put Swiftfox results in context. I am very happy with that, despite 2 different tests. If you know of better test, or some verifiable evidence to the contrary, please provide it. continued failure to not answer I will conclude against WP:CON Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

claim that Swiftfox is just a recompile - no code is changed. This is not true - see article with refs

I have looked. I cant see anything different. I checked the source he has posted on the Swiftfox site. Its a md5sum match to the mozilla download once you remove his license. Either he is breaking the MPL or he isn't changing anything.

This is your original research and as such, breaks WP:NOR, right...OK I'm going along with you....

1. Did you just check the unpatched files?! In which case, of course they are the same!

2. there are separate patch files. e.g. http://getswiftfox.com/source/swiftfox-1.8.0branch.patch lists changes to the program files toolkit/components/passwordmgr/base/nsPasswordManager.h toolkit/components/passwordmgr/base/nsPasswordManager.h toolkit/content/widgets/progressmeter.xml xpfe/global/resources/content/bindings/progressmeter.xml etc

3. did you check the patch files?

4. did you check for all versions of FF? or did you just check 1.5.0.7?

5. did you check the history, as patches should normally get put back into the main code, and will then disappear!

6. did you check the notes about patching?

7. did you check for all arch, presumably they are the same, unless stated. I do not know, but I have not made a claim in the article, so I do not have to back it up with evidence.

1 I cheked the source he is distributing as the Swiftfox soure as is required by the MPL

2 I went to the bugzilla site. I researched each and every patch. They are from Mozilla and not donated by getswiftfox. The only bug he did report, someone else submitted the patch.

3 Yes each one listed in your reference.

4 I checked 1.5.0.7, have you checked the others? Did you even check 1.5.0.7 before saying they were his work? But I will be more than happy to look.

5: I checked the bugzilla and searched for the patch number. The history of who wrote the patch is there.

6 I read each note. Those from getswiftfox say "patch works on Linux" usaly toward the bottom.

7 I checked the page You referenced as proof he made changes. Please provide another reference and I will be glad to check it.Kilz 14:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Kilz 14:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are editing from "too close to the subject" - in your own words, you have said that he has changed the license terms because of your query.

That doesn't change the fact he changed it to a non free license. That he is aiming it at debian users, that the license is non-free or proprietary. Facts are facts. Sometimes they look bad in someones eyes. That doesn't change the truth.

(I formatted above). So, you are agreeing that you are according to the offical rules, "too close to the subject WP:ECOI". Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Knowlage of a subject is not to close. The fact that I know he changed the license and that the application is aimed at Debain users is not being to close. Its a fact anyone can see.Kilz 15:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

# is again the same "too close" if you build Debian/Ubuntu Swiftfox, and IceWeasel. In contrast, I have never done either.

I don't build Swiftfox in any way shape or form. Nor do I use anything from the Swiftfox site. I have built a binary .deb file of Iceweasel. That doesn't require compiling at all. Its placing already compiled binaries in an installer. I don't see how that has any thing to do with the facts above.

("). I quote from User talk:Kilz "I was one of the people that learned how to install 32bit applications into 64bit Ubuntu. That's what made me interested in Swiftfox in the first place. I wanted all the firfefox variants available on the howto. So I made a 32bit deb for 64bit Ubuntu and distributed it, since it was under the MPL at the time." .

The next line is also defamatory of the author "He must be new to Linux because I don't think he gets it that packaging and application development is separate in a lot of applications." You go against WP:NPA, again, another indication of the unhealthy situation of "too close to the subject WP:ECOI" Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Placing already compiled binaries in a .deb file is not building the applications. That I distributed Swiftfox already compiled binaries under an old license that allowed it is not an issue. I stoped when he changed the license. That was his choice and a fact that he changed the license. That dosnt lower my opinions of the application. If it was under a license that allowed it, perhaps I would use it. But everyone who made use of Swiftfox is not biased. My opinons that he must be new to linux never made the article and do not show bias.Kilz 15:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are a new editor, and you only appear to edit this and IceWeasel (which are the same issue), so you are editing on a sort of single issue (note that in comparison, I have done edits to Firefox, and lots of different fields, just in contrast, not to say I know what I'm talking about!)

True I'm a new editor, who has only edited 2 articles. That doesn't make me wrong about everything.

with respect, you avoided the question - single issue, which being "too close to the subject WP:ECOI" and this indicated to me, a sustained attack on the software Indicating breaking WP:NPOV, WP:NPA. You know as well as me that I help you, but you would do well to get some less controvercial edits done on more neutral subjects, else you leave the impression (with me at least) that your contribution is single issue "too close to the subject WP:ECOI" Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You see an attack in everything I do. You do not assume good intentions. I see it as an attepmt to make sure the truth is there. Im sure you can find lots of editors that only edit a few articles on Wikipedia. Or that started out that way. Because this article takes all my time because of a battle with you should not go against me.Kilz 15:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You have made false claims about me breaking WP:NPA, which you then went on and tried to link me in with the author breaking WP:NPA, by using the fact that my Username is Widefox and the software Swiftfox breaking WP:NPA. This is despite the fact that you know I'm a Debian user myself, an OSS contributor, a non commercial agent, a browser specialist, am not related to Swiftfox and have never emailed or contacted the author, and have made repeated attempts to try to buddy you!

Wildefox is the name of a Firefox version http://jrweare.googlepages.com/browser2.0

I admitted that I misread your statement. As for the buddy statement. maybe its true. But right now I don't know.

Again, no reply to my comment, more FUD. A guideline is "assuming good faith" - please read that section. At very minimum, I consider that investing some of my time up-front to get you up to speed with things on wikipedia might then save time. These personal attacks are just a distraction. Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You recieved an aplology for my mistake and still carry this point forward. But your nickname is the name of a firefox varient. That still leaves me with conflict of intrest questions.Kilz 15:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

* assume good faith (as per guidelines) I have accepted you apology which was just a misunderstanding. I fear this happening again

As I fear you changing things I have put into the article without one bit of discussion. But you require me to discuss every little edit. Somehow that doesn't seem fair.

1. You show no sign of calming down about this article - I see nothing here (or above) to assuage my fear. WP:NPA, WP:CON

2. As to an accusation of double standards - that is not true - see above for what I want to do that you do not agree with, so am waiting for the consensus from this (long) discussion. Again, please focus on the facts as presented in black and white, and stop these unfounded and personal accusations. breaking WP:NPA, WP:CON Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is going in circles. IMHO maybe we should keep the above and start new dealing with one issue at a time. While it may take longet it would be less confusing and may solve problems.Kilz 15:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

you have changed the heading title of this section, which is against the rules

I don't know each and every rule. Slowly I'm learning them. It just seemed easier to discuss both sides of the coin rather than start another section. Next time Ill just start a new one.

I note that you have not reverted this problem. I will refrain from an edit conflict with you.breaking WP:VAND Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

point 2 that this argument is going in circles and maybe we should do one point at a time to save confusionKilz 15:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

you did not sign that change, which is against the etiquette

If I did I didn't intend to. I usually fix those that I catch myself forgetting.

goes together with above, breaking WP:VAND You question it - does that mean you haven't checked? If you are saying that you made a mistake - fair enough, easy to do. Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

point 3 that this argument is going in circles and maybe we should do one point at a time to save confusionKilz 15:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you to create separate headings for issues, and enforce some discipline (so that this sort of mega-thread does not develop again)

There is something we can agree on.

Y. Please note how I use indents, instead of blockquote, as per guideline.

I think the fact that you have interacted with the software author - I do not know, and do not want to know the details - means that if I were you, I would not get involved further with his software or allegations about "quality" with it here on wikipedia.

I am not leaving or quitting. Better get used to that. If you want to move forward, fine. But I am not going to leave.

If you have any comments feel free to leave them. But make no changes to the article discussing it with me, if you expect me to do the same. I think my last edit is a good place to start. As it is in my mind as neutral as I can make this. Kilz 06:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So you do not refute this fact. I quote from WP:ECOI

"we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas in which you appear to have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all Wikipedia articles must represent views fairly and without bias. A conflict of interest may significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to meet this requirement of impartiality. It is for that reason that editors with an apparent conflict of interest may be treated with suspicion, despite the policy here that one assumes good faith."

Further to that, when pressed on these issues in future, I would prefer if you would refrain from wasting your and mine with these attempts to turn arguements around without actually answering the question. Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had a few posts on the Swiftfox forum, so have you. Mine are no longer there. I have no conflict of intrest. Perhaps you think that saying it over and over will prove it true. But it isnt true.Kilz 15:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the comment you left on your last revert. "(revert due to not waiting for reply, not taking part in discussion page, renaming discussion page (vandalising it), not signing discussion page, insertion of < br >, Deb POV activism)"

1 + 2. I will not wait over 24 hours for replies. You seem to be able to reply faster before.
3. Adding the flip side to the argument isnt vandalising. If there is a rule. I was unaware of it.
4. I just looked through the history. The only time I did not sign a comment. I immediately made an edit to sign the comment.
5. < br > is a tag that makes a paragraph break. Sorry you dont know html.
6. Better look at that last edit.
You are also directed to the "Benchmark " section of this page at the top. Its still a build if all you are doing is copying in the supplied patches from Mozilla. A fork, like say Flock adds features. Kilz 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1,2. Neither of us dictate anything around here! In this instance I told you clearly I would not reply until you took back your unfounded, and defamatory accusations. Please do not make out that you were put out, it gets in the way of the facts.

3 changing (inverting) a discussion topic by another, especially without signing it may be vandalism WP:VAND (your case is not a 100% match with the rule). FYI I quote WP:VAND "'Changing people's comments'. Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself).". Ignorance is no excuse. (as above) Despite being alerted to this, you have still refused to correct this vandalism WP:VAND.

4 I do not understand

5 I find these personal jibes to be childish, and illogical being as you know I am a browser expert! You go against WP:NPA I quote: "avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comment"

6 see 4. Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok for this section

I repeat my last conclusion Conclusion - 3rd party opinion, or intervention, in order to ensure 1. NPOV, 2. no aggravation of whatever the situation is Widefox 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, recurching reference claims.Kilz 14:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to all you comments. The only new point, from all that above is that I agree with you only in that more benchmark info would be useful. Please go over the topics above - especially the ones you have skipped this time. Also, please do not copy and paste the whole discussion again (as you ommited several parts, and it is not easy to follow), just continue below each item. I have tried to sign most paragraphs so that it's easy to follow, plus instead of using blockquote, just use indent, as is per guidelines. Widefox 03:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WRT licence dispute between you and the Swiftfox author, despite me not wanting to go there....do you have verifiable evidence to backup the claim that the Swiftfox author changed the licence because of your enquiry? If so, please say and I shall put it into the article, if not, you should not continue with that whole allegation. Widefox 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly for me nothing survives but my own good word. The Swiftfox Forums have been wiped of it since that happened and I had nothing to do with that. But I have never placed that in the article. Only that the license restricts redistribution. That is a fact beound evertything else.Kilz 14:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

alternately positive bias making page an advertisement

Editor Widefox appears to have a positive bias.

Edits that look negitive about Swiftfox are removed or spinned WP:NEU

Relies on Swiftfox links as reference, almost all references added by editor come from the Swiftfox site WP:NEU WP:RS (Company and organization websites)

Relies on non Swiftfox benchmarks under the Firefox heading in Benchmarks to make Swiftfox look faster

WP:ECOI User Widefox has admitted donating code and ideas to "faster fox" A firefox extension to make firefox faster. Admitted in 3rd paragraph under Use of Swiftfox site as a reference, Positive bias problem This extension is a competitor of Swiftfox as it makes use of the same adjustments. Kilz 07:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"faster fox" undisputed. I don't understand? - please spellout where you are going with this. Widefox 01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

please be specific about what is allegedly "spinned". refs and benchmark issues dismissed, no new facts - see above. Widefox 01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary of problem

(new heading added by for navigation purposes Widefox 15:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

Also, your use of a dispute tag, while failing to provide a specific reason goes against the guideline WP:TD, and if you continue to fail to provide evidence, goes against WP:VAND, I quote WP:TD "Please remember to use these appropriately, and use the most specific messages you can find for the situation.", and "Improper use of dispute tags" , and WP:VAND "Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus." respectively. Widefox 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You refusal, up until now, to be explicit in what you consider wrong with the article goes against WP:CON. Please provide facts and references, or be more explicit.

In addition, you asked me for the code to provide that banner, and I gave it to you in good faith WP:AGF. You quickly went back on that, while refusing to provide evidence. I quote WP:AGF "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Widefox 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts are Facts as you say, and I still wait for you to add one to the above, so we may reach consensus. My conclusion, so far, is that you are mainly going against WP:ECOI (multiple times), and also breaking WP:NOR (multiple times), and WP:VAND (multiple times), WP:NPA (multiple times), WP:NPOV (multiple times), WP:CON (multiple times). (see bold above for instances). Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC), summary extended after rereading Widefox 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion

(new heading added by for navigation purposes Widefox 15:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

I will adda few other things The dispute tage is not vandalism. The parts that I concider advertisment are changing the entire article to remove anything that is negitive about the article. Each edit I do that doesnt look good in your eyes is edited away or changed. You also request each thing I have added be backed up with references(which I have done). When I have asked for ref's its a battle. You want to mix apples and oranges on benchmarks. "use of Freeware" in a application targeted at Debian users when proprietary was used you reverted it.Kilz 14:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

please provide evidence for this statement. Widefox 15:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am under no rules that I know of to reanswer the questions I have above. You have them. Read them. If you notice some point not answerd, it was a moot point or already addressed. If you find one that you think needs addressing please feel free to point it out.
To start. I have no conflict of intrest. I will copy the answer I gave on my talk page here.
I have no conflict of intrest. That is an excuse you are using to try and force me to go away. My sole intrest is the truth. You are not assumeing good faith.
Going over the points in conflict of intrest.
1. I recieve no money or conciderations for my edits in any way shape or form.
2. I do not expect to get any money or other conciderations in the future from my edits.
3. I am not an emplyeee or member of a conflicting group. That I have made a binary .deb file for the operating system I use for other firefox forks is not a conflict. I have no links or edits, or credit in the code. I simply use the applications as they are released in binary form from the projects to help other Ubuntu users. I recieve no money or other conciderations for doing that. Neither was I asked to do it, nor am I a member of the Ubuntu development teams. I am simply a user helping other users in the spirit of Ubuntu. It is an african word that translated as "Humanity to others". The exact same thing drives me to edit on Wikipedia.
4. I have no friends or family that work on any Firefox related projects. Or any other Browser for that matter.
5. Limited contact on a public forum months ago does not lead to conflict of intrest. As you also have limited contact on the same forum. But you have said you are a browser expert(beelow) and have donated code to a firefox extension. Doesnt that present a conflict of intrest? Especialy since it is "Faster Fox" a extension that is in compitition for use with Swiftfox and uses some of the same settings? Kilz 13:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

From your replies.

1,2. Neither of us dictate anything around here! In this instance I told you clearly I would not reply until you took back your unfounded, and defamatory accusations. Please do not make out that you were put out, it gets in the way of the facts.

3 changing (inverting) a discussion topic by another, especially without signing it is vandalism. Ignorance is no excuse. (as above) You have not corrected this.

4 I do not understand

5 I find these personal jibes to be childish, and illogical being as you know I am a browser expert!

6 see 4. Widefox 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

1,2. So I will have to wait days or weeks if you choose not to answer? I bet if I look I can find a time limit rule.

3. Fixed, But added the flip right under yours topic. Its signed.

4. You accused me of not signing. This may be a misunderstanding I thought you ment a commont , not the title. If you ment the title this is taken care of.

5. You accused me of using a < br > in your edit comments. You are reading emotion in written words that is not there.

6. I dont think you looked at my last edit, and simply revertied it. Doing so may have made some of the things you accuse me of moot.

I do not see you assuming good faith. You are searching for anything to discredit me. Kilz 13:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have summarised the important points from the bulk of the text, please read the approriate parts. I restate, please continue to add facts and arguments to reach consensus. Your reply just now does not participate in the consensus building, and your refusal to lay down some facts there and previously means that I wait for your answer. As indicated previously, I will now take this issue to a 3rd party, as you are refusing to participate in consensus building. Widefox 14:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going over the page again. Its very longKilz 14:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

At to this personal attack with a collection of replies - see summary above for verifiable facts why good faith has been followed on my part. Widefox 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Widefox 14:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I quote from above for clarity "I am under no rules that I know of to reanswer the questions I have above. You have them. Read them. If you notice some point not answerd, it was a moot point or already addressed. If you find one that you think needs addressing please feel free to point it out.
"

Please read the references I list above for guidelines... in this case WP:CON. Yes, we must both try to reach consensus here. Please state your verifiable evidence. Widefox 15:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added, and added , and added. Please read above. Then maybe one at a time we should go over the points to end this circulr argument. Maybe make a section and subsection for each one, one at a time, untill that one is solved starting no more, after reading what I have written above.Kilz 15:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems?

If an infobox factoid is too restrictive, trying to fit an description of the license into a couple words, just remove it and explain the license in the article. —Centrx→talk • 06:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if that is the problem here. Widefox 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem as I see it isn't the space available. But that the application is aimed at Debian users and in Debian the word Free has multiple meanings. The term proprietary is a much better description that eliminates any confusion. If there wasn't ".deb's for Debian users" on Swiftfox main page, or any page, maybe freeware could be used. But using the word Free is a bad idea in any form in this situation.
Secondly there appears to me that anything that is factual and may be considered to be negative is edited out to only make Swiftfox look good. The article is about facts. Both good and bad. Let the reader decide.
IMHO I am in a fight to make the page factual and less confusing. Kilz 14:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your original research and NPOV violations have no place here in wikipedia. Please take up your dispute with the author on your own webpage, or however you feel appropriate, but not here. This article is about the software, and not a dispute between you and the author. Widefox 14:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not about a dispute with me and the author. Reread my comments and stop asuming bad faith. While you require me to talk over any edit, you edit me without the same requirement.Kilz 14:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You have not refuted that you are "editing too close to the subject", and refuse to accept this, which I believe is an ongoing issue here. Widefox 14:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not to close to the subjest. I have went over the points on the conflict of interst page above. Your refuseal to see that, does not make it a fact.Kilz 15:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The undisputed facts say otherwise - see above where you did not dispute them. Alternatively, provide evidence to the contrary. Widefox 15:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is going in circles. I have answerd each and every point in the conflict of intrest above. You keep bring it up over and over. Perhaps in hope that saying it again and agian will make it come true. I recommend you reread the conflict of intrest page, and my answers to them above.Kilz 15:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read through your comments, and see no new facts or arguments. I have requested 3rd party help to resolve this. Widefox 15:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your choice. But as I see this page, IMHO, it is confusing and going in circles. I am attempting to solve the issues. I suggest we take them one at a time, solve that one and move to the next. Your refusal seems to me, IMHO, to say you want to hit me with to everything at once. This approch is not working to solve the issues.
You say that things are missing, fine this gives us both an oppertunity to solve everything. Please make the attempt to solve this one issue at a time. Kilz 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not my choice, it is following the guidelines - when consensus cannot be agreed upon. Widefox 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO only because of the way this is being delt with. I have answerd the one issue in the summery. Perhaps you would like to go forward with the one thing at a time there. I do not think every attempt has been made to solve the problem and reach consensus simple because it is to confusing a page.Kilz 16:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is you can take the item out of the infobox and put in the text something like "It is available at no cost." "Non-free" is not clear to the average reader and should not be used unless it is actually in the Debian non-free repository, and there only in reference to that. —Centrx→talk • 23:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Added your wording to the Summary. Widefox 12:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Advertising banner (continuation)

(moved here from summary section - this is not summary, but continuation of discussion) Widefox 16:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok on the one issue of the dispute tag. I will not address any others. We can work on them after this is taken care of. I will not answer things to remove the tag. This is only dealing with why it is there.

The tage is in place because you keep changing the page to remove any edit that may shine a negitive light on Swiftfox. Correct me if I'm wrong. But an article should have both positive and negitive points where they can be proved.

1 You have removed non-free in an application advertised to Debian users and replaced it with Freeware. When I sugest and edit in proprietary, you remove it in favor of the selling point of Freeware. or it being avilable for free download. This is the number one reason. Free is a selling point, and in cost.

2 You continue to use an apples and oranges benchmark and tests that do not include swiftfox to prove facts you cant. To try and sell that Swiftfox is faster than Firefox. The Firefox in the benchmark section did not include Swiftfox.

3 You edit out anything I put in without discussing it with me. While requiring me to do the exact oppisate.

4 I expect to see a price at the bottom of the page after the hard sell read that it is.

All other issues are open and waiting for replies from you - just continue inline (but increase the indent i,e, ::, ::: etc). OK, just for this topic:

I cannot correct you, if you provide no facts.

From my side, you have inserted an unqualified font "quality issue" that you must justify, not me, as it is your claim. This is all above, waiting to be answered.

Please continue this discussion inline (above), as already requested, so that no points are missed, and further duplication does not happen, as already requested. Widefox 16:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I perfer the one at a time method. The above discussion is to confusing and going in circles.

Evidence that point 1 was attempted to be fixed.

If you prefer proprietary over non-free so it isn't political that's ok with me. But Jason, the builder of Swiftfox has created .deb files (for Debian, spcificly listed on the main Swiftfox page)then restricted freedom by a license in the file. By doing so he has invited the free/non free issue. This isn't like he was making rpm's and didn't expect Debian to point out it isn't free. Yes I have written him and he just got more crazy, by adding the tainted versions line to the license. But users of Debian (and derivatives)deserve to know that they may be installing non-free or proprietary software since its targeted to them. Kilz 18:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You then proced to use Freeware, an edit that was asked to be discussed. One that set a price point and confuses, over one that does not and ends confusion in an application advertised as for Debian users. proff that I was ignored are still in place and the article reads like an advertisment.Kilz 16:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

When I edited the page to fix the issue and tag. you reverted it to one with tagKilz 16:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

agreed, then, we do just this topic here, all others to be done inline, for reasons above.

Licence terminology - you do not list what you object to. Presumably "freeware"...OK why?

Not everyone runs Debian, and nobody is stopping you put in anything about Debian. Just the article is not about Debian, so should not have that focus. Do you agree to that fact?

The other things I am glossing over, so we may focus on facts. Widefox 17:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I will make this offer to breakup the log jam. Replace Freeware with proprietary (and leave it be), or replace the non-free you removed without discussing it. Remove the Firefox section that uses data that did not include Swiftfox in the test from the Benchmarks. Then the tag will be removed while we work on the other areas that are minor in my mind.Kilz 17:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I look at it, is to compare with Firefox. If lists "free", but it still has a "non-free" licence in Debian talk, but again, this is only Debian, and I will not let the Firefox or Swiftfox articles only been seen through Debian terminology. Do you see how that is POV? Widefox 17:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat the central point - it is not about licence terminology - you must justify why you have put on this advertisement banner. What are the reasons. You have not argued that Freeware is the wrong term, and broadly in keeping with the other browsers IMHO, so I repeat, what justifies the banner. Please state clear examples of what it is.Widefox 17:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the wrong term because it is confusing concidering the application is targeted at Debian users on its main page. Firefox is not targeted at debian users. There is no section saying that Firefox has created .deb files for Debain users on its main page. Therefore non-free was best. But I was willing to compromise and use proprietary instead. You did not get consensious and changed it, then edited it out when changed. You want the tag gone, fine, I will revert to a page back to before this started, but change nothing without concensious. That means it goes back to the non-free page.

The other reasons on bias for using the Firefox benchmarks WP:V, the overall read of the page as selling it(free used all over), no negitive facts WP:NEU, only using Swiftfox references WP:V WP:INDY, still stand. Kilz 18:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

what makes you say it is targeted at Debian users? Where is the evidence for that, or any of this. This is all original research, and has no place in wikipedia -see WP:OR. Please read link given above. As far as I know, Debian files have been added recently, so that would indicate the exact opposite to what you say and indicate that it supports Debian, not targets it, but again, I make no claim about it, so the burden is on you to provide a reference that supports your claim. If you cannot, then it has no place here.

what makes it a wrong term? I have checked this twice now, and to me it is the correct term. Do you have any verifiable evidence that this is wrong or confusing - please provide links, refs. Widefox 20:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The banner is not to be used as bargaining for edits that you desire, you must justify the banner here or remove it. That is unconditional.

I still do not understand the connection with why either of these issues would mean that the article is an advertisement. Please specify what rule is broken, for you to use that banner. Have you checked the guidelines before inserting the banner? As I have summarised above, you have not yet provided a valid reason, and break the rule for inserting a banner without stating the controversy, or trying to reach consensus.

I do not follow logic of FF benchmarks making this an advert. Please spell out reasoning. I repeat, have you checked the guideline before inserting the banner. So far, you have still not given a reason.

Now NPOV. NPOV is not advertising, but I'll anyhow....If I understand you correctly, use of "free" is what you object to. Please specify how how it is wrong, or misleading, or whatever you believe. Use of freeware is correct. Free download. You must be explicit, else we cannot talk about facts. Again, no reason.

WP:V - in what way is FF bench breaking WP:V?

I have left in some overly negative "unsubstantiated facts" that you have put in about fonts. You have have not qualified them, as asked to above, so they are already unjustified. I have left them in for now, along with the banner. Please see inconsistent argument above, which also invalidates your whole attack on the quality aspect.

WP:INDY . factually incorrect - there are 17 refs, not all from Swiftfox site.

Remember you have asked me to produce a reference for 3 being higher than 2...which I did in this context, but I will not put that into the article to substantiate the word "higher"!

I asked you to check Intel for comparison. Have you? - refs from the Intel site are used, as is common and unavoidable, and importantly acceptable for this technical information. Widefox 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Targets at Debain users. From the Swiftfox page "I have added deb files for Debian. If you are using Debian then you will probably find this useful. Existing Firefox plugins should work without needing to do anything special." This is not orignal research. Its on the site that distributes the application. He has made .deb files and pointed Debian users by name to them. That targets them as his intended users.

While it may be in use somewhere, exactly how many Linux browsers are advertised as Freeware 1 or 2, and they do not have the source avilable? Im certin it isnt broadly. Freeware also is assoicated with lack of source. Whereas Swiftfox is open source. Thats not to say open source isnt a free, but that the term is open source, not freeware. Freeware refers to a project that is giveing a binary for binary use only, the source is avilable for Swiftfox.

Freeware also is assoicated with lack of source

http://www.techterms.org/definition/freeware

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#TOCfreeware

http://blog.fwnetwork.com/2006/09/07/freeware-vs-free-software/ dose not mention code as part of freeware

http://foldoc.org/?freeware should not be confused with free software that you can modify

http://www.cnet.com/Resources/Info/Glossary/Terms/freeware.html can be passed around or redistributedKilz 20:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to know what concensious you had to change edits to "Freeware while it was on the talk page regarding non-free already under discussion"

The entire page is a huge advertisment for tha application that gives no negitive facts that do exist. Each edit by you removes anything that may point to problems with the application so as to "sell" people on it. I am not bargening for edits, I just hoped to move forward and get the worst off of the article. Kilz 20:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the last part of the responce you gave. I was not asking to discuss those points yet, just merly stating I believe they exist. I have now given my reasoning for the advert tag.Kilz

You did not have a consensus when you made the edit that used "freeware" in place of non-free. It was being discussed as pointed out in my oct 14th post. This was an illegal edit and will be reverted regardless of any other thing. Kilz 21:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect with the definition of freeware - please check that article. If that answers the problem here please say. Widefox 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No I am not liar, and since you posted lies about me I do not trust anything you say or believe you are acting in good faith. The deffinitions posted prove I'm not wrong.Kilz 22:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, just check the article, then tell me what you think. Widefox 22:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you listed as a editor in history. I am more likley to believe 3rd party deffinitions, that ones you have had a hand in crafting to suit your beliefes liar.Kilz 22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If that is your choice, fine, but just look at the article before I edited (BTW, I've already mentioned that I've done that - please check the discussion. BTW, the markup on this page is all broken from your edits, please fix, thanks.) Widefox 23:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite not disputing the facts that you are "editing too close to the subject", continued personal attacks, and either refusing to participate in consensus building, or failing to come up with any facts to backup your argument, you have edited the article twice to insert Debian "non-free" etc. This is circumvention of the consensus building process here, so I was forced to revert. Please continue to make your points here. Widefox 23:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas I reverted it back. Your orignal edit was the one without consensus. "freeware" never should have been added in the first place. It was under discussion and you had no right to remove non-free.
As for personal attacks, that is the pot calling thr kettle black. You have spread lies about me, wrongly accused me of being a sockpupet, and deserve the title of being a liar.Kilz 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion(s)

As of these versions, the article certainly does not read like an advertisement. Speaking as someone totally unfamiliar with the product before reading the article, my reaction is "why would anyone care a rat's patootie about this thing?" I'd say that makes the article a singularly unsuccessful "advertisement."

Thank you for adding what edit you find not to be advertisments. I direct Widefox to look at the link.Kilz 23:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, thank you 3rd opinion! Please read the wording (plural) and look at the link (both versions). That person "certainly does not" agree with you. Widefox 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If there are any remaining disputes regarding content on this article, I'd be happy to give an opinion regarding what seems most neutral and makes best use of reliable sources, etc. I am a software developer by profession, though as I stated above I have no prior knowledge of Swiftfox. This ignorance may prevent me from providing a valid 3rd opinion; it will depend on the issue. Note that I'm not interested in (nor can I do anything about, since I'm not an admin) accusations of editor misbehavior. If one or both of you would like to summarize here any remaining disagreements regarding specific elements of article content, I'll comment if I feel qualified. KarlBunker 02:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do that tomorrow. Current article only needs couple of fixes. 1 last thing while you're here - please just clarify 3rd opinion Widefox 02:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, in my opinion, the {{advert}} tag was inappropriate; neither the version of the article to which it was added, nor the current version of this article, "reads like an advertisement." KarlBunker 04:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. What is an advertisment in your opinion?Kilz 04:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on that is the same as anyone else's. The {{advert}} tag is appropriate when an article is full of laudatory language, one-sided praise and perhaps superlatives for the thing being written about. According to this article, there are disadvantages to Swiftfox, and the few advantages mentioned are minimal. If a few technical details are misrepresented or slanted, that's something that should be corrected, but not a justification for the advert tag. KarlBunker 12:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are some negitives, hard fought inclusions from me. If those were removed and one editor remained all that would be left are positives. Notice the long list of references from the Swiftfox site, specifically against the advertising explanation, that requires 3rd party backing up of claims. But your opinions are your own, I do not seek to change them. Thank you for giving us your definition of advertising.Kilz 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to withdraw my offer to give any more 3rd opinions on disputed issues with this article. I'm afraid I find the topic too uninteresting to be worth the effort of researching the issues. KarlBunker 01:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

6 fixes. 2 are important, the rest not so. Listed below.

while researching, I found a comment from Swiftfox author that explains POV problem here - link provided in Summary of Dispute. Widefox 13:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What you have found is a link on the Swiftfox forums showing that I have informed Ubuntu users on the Ubuntu forms that Swiftfox is non-free. That is the truth. That the builder of Swiftfox dosnt like it is not my bais problem. But his bias against the truth. Please point out more, I love to see all that orignal research you are doing.Kilz 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of sockpupet 67.175.233.209

It appears to me that you have tried to circumvent this discussion here, by using a sockpuppet account WP:SOCK, and then regretting it, and trying to cover fact by reverting. This is the only explanation, as you know that you must reach consensus here before making such a drastic edit. Widefox 21:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

1. 21:23, 21 October 2006 Kilz (Talk | contribs) (on second thought reverted)
2. (cur) (last) 21:20, 21 October 2006 Kilz (Talk | contribs) m (was not loged in during change, this was not intentional)
3. (cur) (last) 21:14, 21 October 2006 67.175.233.209 (Talk) (Removed advert and reverted to non-free, This was changed on the 18th without concensious despite clear discussion that was ongoing on the 14th)

Widefox 21:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a pure lie, I posted when I realized I had been logged out what I was the last editor, if you look at the edit, it was a minor, a space, just to add the "it was me" comment. As you have copied. Look at things before you accuse people of anything, you are jumping to conclusions. You are seeing monsters where there are none, believeing the worst of me. I am starting to believe that nothing can be solved as you are not willing to see things from any point of view but you own.Kilz 21:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary of factual problems and fixes

please comment in section below - this summary is by Widefox to keep short

Unfixed

• Swiftfox licence
  • Problem - "Swiftfox is the only well-known Firefox build or fork to restrict redistribution" - no ref is provided to substantiate this claim and more importantly the claim. It alludes to a wider licensing controversy (some builds are compared, but not all, as needed by claim) - it is original research WP:NPOV#Undue weight
  • Fact - there is a whole community of builds. In fact, anyone can put together a build and restrict the licence, so claim tries to prove something practically unprovable. Mozilla has restrictions on usage - see Firefox.
  • Fix - cut (undue emphasis questions why claim is there at all), qualify with "well-known" sounds POV/weasel words, and is unreferenced
  • Status: Not Fixed. (partial fix was to qualify by adding well-known which continues problem.)

You(Widefox) removed references and the well known qualifier. All builds in the TOC have been referenced to their pages that report the license used. No other build restricts redistribution. Not even Netscape. I have replaced the sections edited under the tag without consensus. Should another build be found any editor can add it and a reference, or fix the section. Until that time the statement is factual. Kilz 20:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Swiftfox licence
  • Problem - Iceweasel needs no extra mention here (already linked to in infobox). The 3rd party licensing information is applicable to all 3rd party builds and most appropriate in Firefox. It is redundant here. Adding to overemphasis on licensing. WP:NPOV#Undue weight
  • Fact - Firefox licensing confine to Firefox
  • Fix - cut
  • Status: Not Fixed.

Iceweasel is listed because it is a unauthorised 3rd party build that removes the artwork and name as the Mozilla trademark policy(referenced) states. You (Widefox) vandalised the page by removing a fact and the reference without consensiuos.Kilz 20:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reference names
  • Problem - The licence refs have wrong title, changed to provide emphasis on free (WP:NPOV#Undue weight)
  • Fact - these are not the correct ref names
  • Fix - these will be rremoved along with the Swiftfox licence overemphasis above
  • Status: Not Fixed.

Do not remove references that link to the pages without consensious. Doins so under a tag that is asking for discussiopn is imho WP:VAN(blanking)Kilz 20:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Firefox speed test
  • Problem - unjustified dispute tag (no satisfactory reply to following statement)
  • Fact - The Firefox slow startup is referenced in this section, and shown to be fixed in the Swiftfox part. Both are needed and referenced. The tag is without reason.
  • Fix - delete tag
  • Status: Not fixed.

Wrong you are misrepresenting the facts. The Firefox data contains no Swiftfox data and needs to be removed. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Kilz 20:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed

• Firefox licence
  • Problem - not relevant (same unsourced controversy as below) WP:NPOV#Undue weight
  • Fact - Firefox article correct place
  • Fix - delete (low priority)
  • Status: Fixed.

• Licensing
  • Problem - use of "non-free" is Debian term and gives wrong impression not free to download, "freeware" is more correct, "proprietary" gives wrong impression (it is Open Source, and source is "free software")
  • Fact - Licence is same as Firefox, but with restricted binary distribution - see Swiftfox licence
  • Fix - Infobox "It is available at no cost.", rest of article free with "Swiftfox licence for binary distribution", or alternatively "freeware", with... (although "freeware" not as good as it is an umbrella term)
  • Status: Fixed, (consensus with editors Widefox, Centrx.)

• Pango
  • Problem - "This can result in lower quality". Current wording is weasel words/POV giving false impression that it affects Western Fonts.
  • Fact - Pango is for international fonts
  • Fix - it needs correct qualifying.
  • Status: Agreed yes. Fixed.

• Freetype2
  • Problem - "lower quality" is weasel words/POV, unsubstantiated difference with Firefox, unsubstantiated affect (in normal usage).
  • Fact - Freetype2 is not in Firefox. There is no difference between Swiftfox and Firefox.
  • Fix - removed. Done.
  • Status: Fixed. (This unsubstantiated, and factually incorrect claim has been removed without consensus, then consensus followed.)

• Downloads available
  • Problem - no link
  • Fact - now that I've fixed the "Firefox TOC", which has Swiftfox site URL - section is redundent
  • Fix - either delete, or maybe better to list different builds to disambiguate (due to complexity of downloads that is relevant for Siwftfox, but not other builds). Latter is better but might require more maintenance, so I'm not bothered.
  • Status: Fixed.

• Reference has wrong title (new point added later Widefox 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Problem - ref 11 "Benchmark at APC Magazine" [1]
  • Fact - title is "APC Magazine: What’s the world’s fastest browser?"
  • Fix - remove incorrect title, replace with text above
  • Status: Fixed.

• Other problems and fixes
  • is "attempts" a weasel word? Fix - maybe remove (I think I put that in!)
    • Status: Fixed.
  • General claim that Swiftfox does not have any additional features is factually incorrect "Enabled XForms" [2]
    • Status: Fixed.

• notability
  • Independent Articles
    • Reviewed by APC Magazine - "APC Magazine: Fastest browser in the world" [3]
    • Ubuntu site [4]
    • madpenguin.org [5]
    • linuxextremist [6]
  • If you have an AMD64, this is the only Firefox! (this should go into article)
    • "Additionally, if you want to install the freshest firefox on your AMD64 system, the only way to do it is to use Swiftfox, since the official Mozilla builds are only available for 32bit systems." [7]
  • General backing
    • >20000 hits on Mozillazine [8]
    • 285,000 google hits swiftfox linux -species -dog -wolf
    • it is much more notable than some other builds/forks that are of obsolete versions
    • Don't know about usage stats
    • Don't know about downloads (only author would know)
    • One of only a few (well maintained) firefox builds
    • 64bit Swiftfox might turn out to be significantly faster, but waiting for benchmark
    • I think Community around Firefox would not like removal, especially near imminent 2.0 release
    • Is technology flagship of browser builds, so notable in technology terms
    • Benchmark result is faster than Firefox
    • Browser speed comparison site will retest Firefox 2.0. I will check if they are going to test Swiftfox.
    • Removal would be letting FOSS activism win
  • Fix - keep
  • Status: Fixed.

Widefox 13:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC) - Widefox 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Summary of factual problems and fixes

First off and foremost, Widefox, you are not an admin, not in charge of this discussion, not in charge of setting what is a fact or what isn't. You are an editor, so am I. If you wish to discuss the page , you will remove the labels of fact and replace fact with "my opinion". Since it is only your opinion. I dispute that everything you call a fact in this section is a fact, a fact. Kilz 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(Kilz reply moved here to keep the summary a summary by Widefox 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Pango affects Unicode fonts, Ariel is a Unicode font. It is referenced.Kilz 17:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

with respect, you avoid the question - it is for international fonts - agree or not? Widefox 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is for international fonts, specifically Unicode fonts Reference 6. What pango improves. Listed is Unicode. On the Wikipedia Unicode is "Out of many Unicode fonts, only few are listed below, which are mostly and commonly used by the (mainstream) majority of users around the world, in major platforms. Unicode font list with more fonts can be found in this (List of typefaces) article's "Unicode fonts" section. Free software Unicode typefaces gives more detail on free typefaces." So yes its for "international" fonts, and some western fonts are international. You are using weasel words, trying to say it is only a few. But it covers a large selection of fonts used all over.Kilz 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Freetype reference of what it dose reflects the quality it imparts. It is referenced.Kilz 17:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You have provided no ref. to say it has been removed. Please provide or remove the claim. Widefox 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Both Freetype2 and pango are listed as disabled in the reference 2. and 3. you used to prove -03 optimization. The references should be added to them.Kilz 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no ref/evidence that it is different from the Firefox build. I just don't know that it is. Widefox 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of you requiring references for everything. http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Configuring_Build_Options It has already been shown its disabled. Now you want references that tis diffrent than Firefox. Kilz 03:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Fact on the Swiftfox main page and that it has its own Debian page shows it targets Debian and derivatives. non-free is appropriate because its being targeted to Debian and directives that seek to use only free as in freedom software. Freeware in links above reflects software without code, or that can be freely distributed.Kilz 17:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Already discussed this, "available" != "target". It seems you do not contest that point. In addition, author says he's considering removing debs (because of you - see ref below).

I contest that. The fact that there is also a "Debian" page, separate of all other pages is also proof that the application is built for or targeted to debian users. In a .deb file that is a Debian package format. This is no little comment leading to a mixed selection of downloads, but a page with links to debian downloads, and only Debian downloads.

That he is considering stopping making them because I and people I do not know are telling other users its non-free (on the Ubuntu forums) is nothing I can control. He could also choose to continue making them available. That the comment was made Oct 8th and the downloads and page are still there says he plans on continuing.Kilz 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the Swiftfox website now explicitly states that it doesn't "target" any particular distribution. Widefox 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am truly less than amazed that the site has changed the wording on its front page to reflect a discussion here. It says to me that the site may be looking at this discussion. Trying to change the outcome. But this wording is opposite of its actions. It names Debian, creates a Debian page, posts .deb files. Then it posts it doesn't target Debian. That imho isn't what the facts show at present. As soon as we see other distro's on the Swiftfox site we can edit the page to reflect that. We cant base the article on what may happen in the future.Kilz 12:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Massive links to multiple downloads will be considered advertising by me. There are more than enough links to the Swiftfox site already on the page.Kilz 17:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand "Massive". Insertion of an advertising banner would not be wise, as this article is not advertising. The article will move in an NPOV direction from this point on. FYI I'm actually fairly neutral as to weather it's helpful to list builds here, probably not. Widefox 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad you see that links to every download page on Swiftfox isn't a good idea. That would be "selling" and a hard sell at that. It IMHO would be considered by people other than me as advertising. As for the NPOV, as long as your willing to controll the positive bias I'm sure we can make the page neutral.Kilz 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't control anything here. Please refrain from being personal. Widefox 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I would prefer editing to "proprietary" build as fork is to broad. To my knowledge Firefox is the only build distributed as proprietary. If others are found it can be changed then.Kilz 17:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you still talking about forks? "proprietary" is way off considering it is Open Source. "freeware" is correct (did you check the link yet, you did not say?), but I'd settle with wording above. IE is listed as "proprietary". FF is also "non-free", - those are the facts. Please just accept the facts, or provide a counter argument. Widefox 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I contest that it is Freeware and that since its a Debian application, packaged in a Debain install format. Even if you discount that Free should not be used to describe it, without some disclaimer that it is non-free as the DFSG are written. This is a application built for Debain. That is a fact. As for Firefox, this is not the Firefox page. Firefox is also not available in .deb files, with a Firefox "Debian" download page.Kilz 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you contest "freeware"? You provide no argument, therefore you do not contest.

Factually incorrect - it is not a Debian application (as in distributed by them), but merely packaged for Debian systems - please do not confuse the two. Widefox 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have went over why its not freeware on this page over and over.

They have no choice, they cant distribute it. The reason it isnt distributed by them is that it cant be because the license makes it impossible. Dont tell me you are saying it cant be a Debian because it isnt distributed by them. This isnt a situation where Debian can distribute it. The Builder is trying to walk around the DFSG by stoping them. If they could distribute it, it would be in non-free because the DFSG show it is.Kilz 03:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep shows what is different about Swiftfox from the application it is derived from. Kilz 17:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not an essay on comparison of licensing of browsers. Widefox 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a page about Swiftfox, some mention should be made as to the licensing differences it has from Firefox. The application its derived from. The differences are a fact. Prove they don't exist if you want to remove any mention of them.Kilz 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight is the central problem. This is an example. Do you get the impression that others do not care about this issue as much as you? Widefox 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, just because you dont agree dont try to make it out that you hold the majority opinion.Kilz 03:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Letting foss activism win? This shows bias against foss. I also think you better reread the notability tag and its page. Notability refers to being notable. "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." Then and look at section 6.7 of reliable sources. My reading of the tag is that we have way to many Swiftfox links in the references.Kilz 18:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I find that view illogical - how can I be against FOSS, if I'm a FOSS developer?! It is listed on my userpage that you said you'd seen. For me, the difference is, that on wikipedia, I'm a writer, not a developer. But this is all personal, it doesn't really matter what I am, as long as the article is NPOV. Widefox 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The "not letting FOSS win" is a pure showing of bias. That you can not see it is all the more cause for me to worry. Kilz 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

no comment. Widefox 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just a Summery of your opinions of what the problems are, they are not Facts. I disagree with all of them to some extent. They also show that you want to remove any negative fact on the page. This will leave it reading as an advertisement. Kilz 18:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

7 clear "fact"s. Your reply above does not mention any of the 7 "fact"s, so it appears to me that you do not dispute any of them, do you? Consensus with the facts is all I am interested in. Widefox 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I contest all in some way or form. As you can read above. The only one we have a slight agreement on is not adding multiple download links.Kilz 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not contest unless you state something. Widefox 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have stated Kilz 03:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

XForms claim disputed - Xforms makes Swiftfox a fork are disproved by the fact is says "enabled" not added. In other words it was turned on. XForms have there own Mozilla page. The fact is. Swiftfox is nothing more than a build or a compile. It is not a different program. But Firefox with a different name and icon. Kilz 19:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing how it is made, with what features it provides. Widefox 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I may have misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting that since it provides this feature, it isn't a build but a fork.Kilz 22:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional Summary of factual problems and fixes

(Widefox, Feel free to include this in the above section or make its own section, I was unsure where it should go.)

• References
  • Problem - References have 8 references to the Swiftfox site that are not backed up by 3rd party references.
  • Fact - WP:RS (Company and organization websites) requires 3rd party references to back up claims. This is also a notability issue IMHO.
  • Fix - Add 3rd party references or remove claims and references.

• Optimization Section(Firefox)
  • Problem - Optimization contains Firefox section.
  • Fact - This section contains data and References that did not include Swiftfox in the data. It is an apples to oranges comparison.
  • Fix - Remove section.

• Optimization Section(Swiftfox)
  • Problem - Contains 1.7% with no number to show what its a percent of. Other data is a comparison of 64bit builds that did not include Swiftfox on the APC Magazine page.
  • Fact - A percent alone is only half the information. Editors should not mix 32 and 64bit data without at least noting that it is mixed.
  • Fix - Remove 64bit data or edit the fact data is mixed to section. Either list the .12 second difference in 32bit versions that 1.7% represents, or list as 1.7% of 4.79 seconds.

Kilz 12:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Additional Summary of factual problems and fixes

• Refs
  • Fact - Swiftfox refs only used for technical details, and not claims.
  • Real Problem - Kilz forced the insertion of these refs, due to questioning technical details. By Kilz logic, ref 7 Freetype is from the Freetype site, so must not be included. This is not conventional practice, as shown by Intel (technical refs)
  • Fix - no fix needed

Claim of higher level of compiler optimization needs the reference, already listed on this talk page, included. That -03 is higher is a claim.Kilz 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This reply is not on this topic. I conclude you do not contest the issue.

As to this separate topic - this has been extensively talked about above, and conclusively dismissed with a reference. Please add this as an issue on your list. Widefox 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is on topic, because you are using a Swiftfox reference for that claim. That you explained the reason its higher above is no reason why the url you gave shouldnt be added. Is it really that hard to add the reference?Kilz 00:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Still offtopic - please reread your topic.

About this separate issue - I will not put in a reference for "3" being "higher" than "2". I have spelled this out before, and you keep asking again. It is a clear indicator that you will not accept even the most basic of mathematical facts, with further conclusions being drawn from that. Widefox 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A number can be used for anything. Just because the number is higher doesn't indicate the optimization is higher. Just that a different number was used. Kilz 03:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I close this topic at this point. It is clear to all that you are refusing to accept beyond logic or reason. That is your choice, but means that you refuse to discuss in a civil way. Widefox 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Optimization Section(Firefox)
  • Fact - Swiftfox is evaluated in the context of Fastest browser in world - see article ref.
  • Reason - by using Firefox benchmark as context, Swiftfox speedup can be put into context (but not directly compared due to separate test) with speedups from other browsers. The result is a portrayal of Swiftfox not as the fastest browser, so is negative.
  • Reason - Kilz argues for the inclusion of Firefox licensing, but argues against Firefox benchmarking, when the benchmarking is more pertinent to the reason for Swiftfox's existence (i.e. speed)
  • Fix - none needed

Disagree, Firefox section in this case contains no Swiftfox data. Comparing it to the license change is wrong. As both had the same license at one point and one was changed leading to a difference. Had the Firefox benchmark had Swiftfox data that was changed maybe it would be included. But it doesnt have any Swiftfox data, none, nada. Speed as reason for Swiftfox's existence is original research and not found on any web page. Swiftfox site only claims optimization, not speed.Kilz 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

both had the same source code, but the outcome is different. You see the analogy? The rest of your reply I did not understand. Widefox 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As simple as I can put it. The firefox section should be removed as it contains no Swiftfox data. You will need a reference that speed is Swiftfox's claim. Kilz 04:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

reason - Sets the context for startup speed problem, and it is also 1/2 of the benchmark data. This is a repeat of a topic above I answered above, and concluded. I see you just simply refuse to accept, but you refuse to attempt to reach consensus, or wait either for RfC or until the cabal looks at this case. I have removed your unjustified tag until this further action. Please talk through your controversial edits here beforehand. Widefox 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That you have found the section where I tried to reach consensus and discuss this issue proves you wrong. I have tried on mutiple times to get you to see this. I have replaced the vandalism you mave made to my edit. The tag is justified. The Firefox benchmarks contain no Swiftfox data. That you answerd a topic does not mean I agreed with it. Since you have chosen to ignore me, I felt I had no choice. Kilz 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As for waiting on the RFC, you are editing the page again. You are not waiting on them. You are editing pango, removing freetype, etc. Why should I wait post a tag on something that shouldnt be there? A tag is about discussing and fixing problems. Well no time like the present.Kilz 01:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right that I have removed the freetype2 issue. You have admitted it should not have been there, so please do not continue to insert your original research. This is against the fundamentals of wikipedia. Widefox 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Optimization Section(Swiftfox) (2 separate issues)
  • Problem 1. -
  • Fact - 1.7% is the speedup. That is the most succinct way to describe speedups. Full details are not currently available - see ref.
  • Fact - benchmark is clearly flagged as not "definitive". Going into too much detail might be overkill.
  • Fix - Uncontested (see above) - more info can be put in (but not needed, or desirable), but not in a way to dilute clarity of speedup.
  • Problem 2.
  • Fact - both tests are 32bit! (see refs)
  • Fix - none needed

Widefox 14:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

.12 of a second is the difference, thats clear,its 1.7% thats is vague. 1.7% of what is the question? 1.7% of 1000 is different that 1.7% of 10. We need to add what it is a percent of, or the exact difference. We would be clarifying it, not diluting it.

Look again at the APC page the 1.7% of 4.79 seconds difference is between 32bit Firefox and 23bit Swiftfox. The comparison of Opera, Konqueror, and Firefox are all 64bit versions. You cant claim that Opera or Konqueror is faster to 32bit Swiftfox with that, only 64bit Firefox.Kilz 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see where the confusion is - please check the other benchmark. They are all 32bit. Once you agree, I expect you to remove this as a "fact" above, as it is verifiable incorrect. Widefox 16:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with using that other benchmark(firefox section). You cant because it is not on the same machine (different processors hard drive, motherboard, and ram), and os (32bit Suse 9.1 vs 64bit Ubuntu). It didn't include Swiftfox in those tests. So we cant be sure that the numbers line up. Its an apples to oranges comparison. This is another reason that firefox section shouldnt even be on the page. Kilz 17:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

factually incorrect 64bit OS is not used for 32bin testing. Both tests have 32bit testing, which are used in this article. Indisputably one of the tests does additional 64bit testing. Both me and the article do not refer to that, please do not get confuse the issue. "Both tests" are therefore 32bit, your claim is factually incorrect. Widefox 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Only 32bit Swiftfox and firefox 1.5.0.6 were tested on APC. I quote "I sat down to see if Swiftfox could live up to its moniker using the AMD64 optimised binary for Ubuntu on my AMD64 4400+ system." The amd64 version of Swiftfox is 32bit. It was ran on a 64bit system as the page says. You cant use the sections to compare. Kilz 03:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the 64bit OS. The article now has that noted. Widefox 17:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you now see that the os is different. I now point out that the one in the Firefox benchmarks. Suse 9.1 on "Hardware; 800 MHz Intel Pentium 3, 256 MB RAM" (32bit). Is completly different. It is not possible to use the numbers from one, to compare it to the other. The only thing It shows is that Firefox is slower than Opera or Knoquror. Since this article is not about Firefox, benchmark data isnt usefull if it does not include Swiftfox. In any event the APC benchmarks include this comparison, but it is in 64bit applications. Kilz 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the 2 tests are different! that's why we don't over-labour the comparison (hint - not too much info on the one test). Don't know what you're saying? The text is in agreement with every comment I've seen (broadly). Widefox 23:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If the two tests are different (different os and hardware), and one does not contain any Swiftfox data. Why on earth is it still there?Kilz 00:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

they are different, agreed (as above). Your point is? Widefox 04:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is you have data that has no Swiftfox information on the Swiftfox page. There is no way to show that it shares these numbers, or have ever shared these numbers with Firefox. The different hardware and the fact Swiftfox was not included in the test makes that impossible.Kilz 11:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your reply. If you mean, it is never valid to make limited inferences using two tests, with caveats, I do not agree. What makes you think that? In plain speak, we do not compare speeds directly in the test, the test shows 32bit and 64bit binaries were similar speed anyhow meaning this whole argument appears to be a red herring, so please state your specific reasoning. The logic that anything not about Swiftfox cannot be included is flawed, as dealt with above, already. If you do not have a specific reason, then there is nothing new in this thread, and I consider it closed. Widefox 12:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the speed comparison wording and added more refs to be more explicit. Widefox 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point in the dialogue, Kilz has not replied to either of my 2 comments above, but instead added a tag to the article. It appears to me that by adding tags before answering 1 let alone 2 replies in the thread is circumvention of the process. Widefox 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not valid to use a test that contains no Swiftfox data, on diffrent hardware, with a different operating system, even on different versions of the applications themselves. I quote from the Firefox Benchmarks page "Firefox 1.5 tests were done using Firefox 1.5 beta 2". So yet again I have found yet another thing that makes the tests useless. It also is impossible to use Firefox data to show something about Swiftfox. It just shouldnt be done. The tests would seem to show it slower than opera and konqueror. I am not interested in that fact, only that true data be presented. I am replacing the tag, do not remove it a third time. Kilz 12:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but please read the article. It clearly sets out why FF speed is important for the context (as repeated above). You have not talked about that. By your logic that FF 1.5b2 should not be used, that would mean that it shouldn't be used in Firefox, which it is. As to the test being useless, I think the editors of Firefox (me included) do not agree with you. You have a valid point, but your concern is dealt with with the way the comparison is worded in the article. You are overlabouring your point, and not replying to the need for context, my concern about FF licensing (which has less relevance than FF speed in this article), and you are causing an edit war, without reaching consensus here, or on Firefox for removing the FFb2 test. Widefox 14:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Put the other way around, how else can one evaluate the speed of Firefox if no Firefox benchmark is listed? You do admit that evaluating FF is needed for the claim of the fastest browser? This justification is in the article, with refs. Widefox 14:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The diffrence in the licensing is that Swiftfox had that license orignaly, so we can show the differences. The difference for the firefox page is that it contains Firefox data. Old data, but Firefox data. The Data is on the same machine and os. So it may be apropriate to use on the Firefox page in some way. I am also not editing the Firefox page, or I might want to put in a note that the data is on an old beta, on the Firefox page. I dont see how we can use the numbers of a test Swiftfox wasnt used in. We cant say for sure what the outcome would be. I honestly dont see a way we can use it.

This is not the place for a review or critisism of any licencing issues - see WP:NOT "Primary (original) research", "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought", and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" in particular "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind" - you have no reference to this being an issue, unlike the fastest browser reference. As per my open issues above, I call for deletion. Widefox 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not orignal research that the two browsers have different licensing and it can be found on their respective websites. This is not a soapbox advocating one or the other, but the fact that they are different. In fact the Swiftfox site has a link It is also common knowlage that Firefox is released under the MPL. Just as the things that are added are listed, and that they are not in Firefox is implied. If we are to remove the information that the licenses are different, shouldnt we remove the fact that thigs are added to Swiftfox. If you need a page someplace that says the licensing is different, Im sure I can find a post or 2, not by me, on the Ubuntu forums.Maybe even one or two outside. In fact Im going to keep looking. Perhaps there are enough links to make a licensing controversy section. Kilz 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

forums and blogs do not count, this will be deleted. I repeat "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" in particular "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind" - you have no reference to this being an issue. Widefox 16:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they do, and disagree that its a soapbox. While the forum post may not be good enough by itself, the blog plus the forum posts are. Along with the fact , that its a fact the licenses are different. You do not have consenious to delete it. I would not recommend doing so. If you think there needs to be an issue, I dont think all the things changed are an issue. Kilz 21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is against policy WP:RS, a policy you've already seen and quoted multiple times above (see Talk:Swiftfox#Benchmark link (Centrx), Kilz 07:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC) etc) . It will be removed. Widefox 09:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a possibility. But looking at the sites , already referenced, of Swiftfox and Mozilla shows in fact the licenses are different. That's a fact supported by Jasons comments why he changed the license. Since its a fact that the license was changed, by jason. Trying to remove the information of what it used before is wrong. There is no argument that it didn't use the MPL at one time, because that's the license all Mozilla code is released under. Maybe I should rewrite the section to show that we are showing the differences in the original and newer license, and not just this is what Firefox uses.Kilz 12:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've asked you repeatedly, and you have not provided any reference after all this time. At some point you must admit this lack of a verifiable controversy you allude to in the article, and allege all over this talk page. It will be deleted as stated before and now. Using wikipedia to pursue a licence problem you have been personally involved in is against all three content policies WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:RS. Widefox 13:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It isnt a controversy that they use different licenses, its a fact. There are enough references that show this. There are comments on the Swiftfox site that Swiftfox isnt licensed under the MPL "Binaries provided by getswiftfox.com are not licensed MPL and therefore are not freely distributable." What was used before is fitting to remain. There does not need to be a controversy for information (facts) to remain on the page. That the code that is compiled is under the MPL untill the license is changed is factual and referencable. That it doesnt use the license of the application its based on is also factual, important, and referencable. This isnt a licensing dispute , but the facts of the licensing. Licensing is an important part of the information on any application. Kilz 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

who's disputing the facts? You have not disputed that the comparison/emphasis/controversy/topic is not verifyable, it cannot stay. Widefox 20:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did dispute it. Just because you cant comprehend that isn't an invitation to delete sections of text. I showed its referenced. I just added it again, don't remove it without conscious. If you do, I shall consider it WP:VAN Blanking and replace it. Kilz 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You dispute, but refuse to add a reference or backup your dispute. This is not civil, as is edit warring. Please do not question my comprehension. I do not like it. Widefox 00:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the speed claim to me can be proved by the APC benchmarks. It included firefox data as well as swiftfox data. While there is a diffrence in bit, it also included opera and konquorer. Maybe now that Firefox 2.0 has been released there will be new benchmarks that include Swiftfox.

Maybe. Widefox 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Dispute

23:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV (Debian/Ubuntu) in particular WP:NPOV#Undue weight (Licence, in particular "non-free") . Personal involvement of User:Kilz with the licence change (Kilz's words[9]), licence infringement [10] (author's words) leading to severe relationship with Swiftfox author resulting in Swiftfox forum ban (warning - expletives) [11] (See "I banned Kilz long ago" and "I am probably going to be discontinuing the debs." due to Kilz), Mozilla forum problem ("take this somewhere more appropriate") [12], (personal attack on author)[13] [14], [15] ("I have a sinking feeing this delay is so he can sabatoge the source code."), [16], [17] (See "who is he that we should trust him?" Kilz), where Kilz has blanked an old comment since being exposed here [18]

• use of a dispute tag without reason WP:TD, continued failure to provide evidence WP:VAND, refusal to accept 3rd opinion (tag was shown by me in good faith WP:AGF)
• no facts WP:NOR or possibility to reach consensus on any above issue WP:CON
  • dismissal of 3rd opinion
  • against Centrx and my agreed opinions about "non-free"
  • dismissal of my opinion
  • dismissal of most Swiftfox references (purely technical, or links to site)
  • changing of licensing term (circumvented consensus building) leading to an edit war and the article locked.
  • repeatedly requiring proof that "3" is "higher" than "2" (multiple requests above)
• personal attacks, accusations, for me and Swiftfox author WP:NPA
• selective blanking and inverting conversation on User talk:Kilz [19]
• WP:VAND, WP:NPOV (see bold above for instances) Widefox 01:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(original wording was WP:ECOI but due to Kilz being an unpaid Debian/Ubuntu supporter (>2000 posts in Forum), WP:ECOI does not apply, so changed this to WP:NPOV Widefox 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

---

Reply to Summary of Dispute

(renamed by Widefox 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC) to keep discussion together, and separate from Summary, changed to HR separator and reverted to "Reply to.." because previously uncontroversial "Discussion of.." wording for all other headers is now controversial for this header. Widefox 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

I Repeat, this is a second warning, changing the title of this section is WP:VAND (Changing people's comments) You are intentionaly editing my comment(title of secton) to change its meaning. I do not wish to discuss this with you. This is my statment to make to refute what you have posted about me. It is not a discussion. Do not edit it again. You are not in charge of this page, nor are you an admin. I am leaving your comment as proof you vandalised it. Kilz 00:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"too close to the subject" WP:ECOI due to User:Kilz involvement with the license change

I did not change any license of any application Jason Halme the person responsible for Swiftfox may have. Under Continuation of Discussion I answered the conflict of interest points one by one. I have no conflict of interest.

It is only from your words that we know of your involvement in the licence issue, I see no point in arguing further about it. It is on record. Widefox 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The referenced by Widefox is pointing out that I have told others that Swiftfox is non-free, this only goes to show that he is targeting the Debian distro and its derivatives. As it references posts not on the Swiftfox forum. But on the Ubuntu forum. It is not a conflict of interest to tell others about software licensing facts on a forum . That the builder of Swiftfox doesn't like the truth (that Swiftfox is non-free because it restricts redistribution)to be told is not a conflict of interest. That the builder banned me from the Swiftfox forums for speaking the truth is not a conflict either. I have no stake in the outcome of anything. I am not a competitor, work for a competitor, have any assoiciations with a competitor, will not now, or in the future have one. Therefore I have no intrest to conflict, I only seek that the truth is told. That because of what I have written on a seperate forum to inform others that the application is non-free, the builder descides to stop targeting the commuity is not my descision.

Neither dose the second post on a blog questioning if the application may contain malicious code. Because the builder may restrict it from places it normally would be looked at more thoroughly. In order to prove a conflict of interest Widefox must prove that I have some interest that is in conflict. Such as working for a different company, or working on a different project. As the Editing with conflict of intrest page he sites shows.

After I have proven there is no conflict of interest the accusations then changed to WP:NPOV (Debian/Ubuntu) in particular WP:NPOV#Undue weight License.

Facts are neutral. It is a fact that the license changed vs the one used in Firefox. It is a fact the license then restricted redistribution. No one can prove these are not facts. The facts are neither themselves positive, or negative.Simply printing facts is not a bias. Wording them into a way that is either negative or positive is a bias.

Dealing with the licensing issue, The only person who can change a license is the person responsible for the application. That is not me. That the license details are important is not a view I alone have. Telling a lie, or making the license to look like something it is not is not factual or neutral. In fact the whole dispute center's around candy coating issues, printing things that are not true, or trying to remove them because Widefox does not agree with them. That I was there when the license was changed and did not like it does not change the fact that it is different than the application the Swiftfox is based on. Licensing details are also not minor. They are very important.

It is a fact that Swiftfox builds .deb files. A Debian application install format. It has its own Debian page This is not a minor fact. That the application is placed in a Debian install format. It can be proved that The page exists, the .deb files exist. That no other page for a specific Distribution or install format can be found other than tar.gz files on a separate page is also telling. That the application is in files that are used only in a specific set of Linux distribution, that Debian is named on the Swiftfox site, that the page on the Swiftfox site is named for that Debian. Makes the licensing and guidelines of Debian not minor, but rather of more of interest. Not including those facts is a bias. Changing those licensing details for other distributions that are not named on the Swiftfox site is also wrong.

I think this whole section above on licensing is proof enough of your overemphasis on licensing issues. I do not find it easy to read. Please just checkout the guideline on style for talking here. Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I fid that your wanting to hide information and limit it hard to understand.Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I also find that the weight of the information about free vs non-free and/or that it is restricted, that non-free and/or its restricted distribution has the same weight or more. This is because of the Debian page on the Swiftfox site. The fact that it is distributed to Debian users who have the DFSG to follow. That even thought the builder of Swiftfox says that it isnt taregeted at Debian(Strange how he found that hidden in the middle of this long page all by himself and changed the page) the fact that it is the only distro to have its own page and package format places that weight for non free. That it is the only known firefox build to restrict distibution should also be included in weight. A licensing fact that seperates it from other similar applications is important. Seeking to remove it, or that others do not do this is wrong. Kilz 14:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Lastly pointing to opinions on other forums is not proof of bias on wikipedia. Posting that the builder of Swiftfox has opinions about me and what may have happened in the past without links to what actualy happened is not proof of anything. Neither is posting of discussing licensing with those who regulate it. Neither is posting a link (contained post that wasnt on topic) that was removed on the 17th, before this dispute started. What they are proof of is lack of assuming good faith on the person listing them here. While I have tried to assume good faith. This is not the case for the other party here. Who seeks to drag me through the dirt. This latest attack shows that when I prove an accusation wrong, he doesnt drop it, but changes the attack and reasons for starting this.Kilz 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You have made your opinions known to a wide audience, on different websites. That is your thing. It's main relevance here is that you attempt to do the same with this article. You have made unfounded claims in the Ubuntu forum about swiftfox font support and have repeated that unfounded and incorrect claim here. Both when the author challenged you to be explicit and when I did, you failed to provide evidence. Talk in a forum is your thing, but you cannot make such claims in an article without expecting them to be removed, which is what has happened. Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The pango information is factual and remains in the article. Pango has been removed from the application. It affects the quality of Unicode fonts. I am starting to see the weasel words you are using in that area, and I will be looking for more information on the subject. Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• use of a dispute tag without reason WP:TD, continued fail to provide evidence WP:VAND,refusal to accept 3rd opinion (tag was shown by me in good faith WP:AGF)

After explaining my reasons for the tag, user Widefox continued to go round and round asking for them over and over. My reasons were honestly what I felt was wrong. While Widefox did show me the tag, I did not use it in bad faith. To me the article seemed to be trying to sell people on the application. Negative facts were removed. accurate numbers were replaced with vague percents. Benchmarks that did not include the application were used to make the application look better. Acording to the Advertising Guidelines "Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable" I have went over and over that relying on the Swiftfox site as ref's is a problem.

I ask again, please state reasons, with reference to the usage of the tag. Until now, you have given no concrete reason. Now that the 3rd opinion agreed that it is not justified, this has no purpose. Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The overall eread of the article, the reliance on the Swiftfox site as references to prove things when 3rd party references were needed.Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• no facts WP:NOR to reach consensus on any above issue WP:CON

• 3rd opinion is just that, an opinion. It is not binding. The first opinion was not specific, so that it could have been read eithor way.
  

Please try to work with other editors to reach consensus, as per guideline. You must realise that by dismissing everyone else's opinions in this way - will just result in you remaining isolated. Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as you dismiss mine? Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have not found a statment by Centrx anyplace on this page that says the non-free should only be used in reference to Debian. That this application is targeted at Debian makes this important. That it isnt in the non-free repository is the result of the builder licensing it under no redistribution clauses. While still distributing to Debian users in a Debian format.
  

check above. I quote "non-free...should not be used used" . You must not insert this, as it is against the consensus here. Please come to terms with this, or get more opinions, else this point is finished. Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A search of this page finds no such wording. Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• dismissal of Widefox's opinion? This page is crawling with places he dismissis mine.
  

You could not have summed up the issue better! Instead of answering the question, you have turned it around. Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Turning an argument around is fair. It shows the accuser is doing the same thing. That they are a hypocrate.Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I simply think we need references from more than just the Swiftfox site.
  

I have repeatedly asked you to check Intel. Until you do this, or give a report why this is not a valid example, I do not with to entertain this point again. Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked for the reference on the article, not here. Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• In fact Widefox changed the licensing term on the 18th while it was under discussion. Dismissing my opinions.
  

Dealt with above. Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No it was not.Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Requiring a reference to the claim. One exists, but Widefox refuses to add it.

Not accepting 3 is higher than 2 still! What can I say? Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbers can represent anything. Just because the number is itself higher than the last in a list or setting does not prove its a higher anything other than the number used. The settings could in fact be lower.Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Saying I dont think the author gets something isnt a personal attack. Apologized for misreading a statement that lead to me believing widefox was in email conversation with the author of Swiftfox. I did call him a liar after he falsly accused me of using a sockpuppet. IMHO he was a liar. Not that I call that a personal attack.

What you say is recorded. Please be more civil. Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Take your own advice.Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• selective blanking and inverting conversation on

User Widefox seems to think that he can make my talk page the Swiftfox talk page. That he can take it over and do whatever he likes. I do not want Swiftfox topics on my talk page, it is to talk about me. This page is here to talk about Swiftfox. Therefore I consider each post on the subject of Swiftfox on my talk page vandalism. I will therefore remove it. I have removed everything dealing with Swiftfox from the page. The page is archived. Even if it wasnt , it has nothing to do with this article, or dispute.Kilz 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You selectively removed conversations, and inverted your previous comment, as shown by my diff above. When I pointed this out, you cleared the whole page. That is the only issue here that goes against the guidelines. Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This did not even happen on this article. So no matter what, it is not related. I had already removed the short statment before you responded to it. Responding to things that were removed is kind of stupid as wikipedia tells you when a page has changed.Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• WP:VAND, WP:NPOV (see bold above for instances) Widefox 01:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bolded areas above prove I corrected things I was unaware of. New editors are not perfect, I'm new and Widefox knew it. But kept expecting me to be a seasoned pro. Knowing every rule. Then dragging me over the coals if the slightest was broken. An example of this is reporting me as a sockpuppet for a not logged in edit. One I claimed in a minor edit within minutes.Kilz 03:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Updated Kilz 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

By your logic that you are new (as most of us are), please read the links I've listed, and try to engage in consensus building here before changing any topic you have not reached consensus on still, and try getting some more experience editing articles where you are not so closely involved in. Widefox 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that knife in my back only showed me one thing. What kind of person you are.Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you keep saying I'm closly involved does not make it so.Kilz 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not write such personal attacks, I find it offensive. More importantly, my reply below has been isolated, so I remove the whitespace. Widefox 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack? Like accusing someone that makes a loged out edit of being a sockpuppet? Saying that you backstabed me by7 doing that isnt a personal attack. A personal attack is what you commited.Kilz 19:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, just state your facts, with references as what you want changed. This page is already over-long. Widefox 13:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is my response to your accusations. Do not seek to tell me what to write, or tell me how it should be written. Your input is above. Leave it there. Do not change one word. You have vandalized this section by modifying the header. Do not do it again.Kilz 17:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That came out wrong - of course you should respond. Please do. We should try to keep the page in separate sections, and short for other readers as well, is what I meant to say. Also, I would appreciate it if you created something like my section ==Summary of factual problems and fixes == . That way it would be balanced, and you can list it in the RfC below. Widefox 19:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:VAND (Changing people's comments) The title of this section should not be changed. You are changing its meaning. This is the third warning not to change the title or formating. This is not your page, or section. Do not change anything I add to this page.Kilz 01:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that trying to keep the formatting consistent is now objectionable. No problem - I've just worked-around with an HR tag. Widefox 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

One of the two users involved in this dispute needs to start an RFC on this dispute. A third opinion would not suffice as this elevated from a content dispute to one of incivility and accusations of various policy violations. I also suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Thanks, KazakhPol 18:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I checked them out yesterday when I asked for the 3rd opinion. I'll do as you say. Widefox 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC done. Cabal also requested. Widefox 12:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Swiftfox

This is a dispute about software licensing terminology, the affect of removing 2 font subsystems, article notoriety, status as advertising article, citing names of references correctly. 19:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Widefox: For problems and fixes see Summary
• All: For discussion of those see Discussion
• Kilz: For problems and fixes see Additional Summary
• All: For discussion of those see Discussion

Comments

Removal of Other Editors Comment

Editor Widefox completely removed a comment of mine from the Third opinion(s) section. This is WP:VAND (Blanking,Changing people's comments) As evidenced in this edit history An entire comment was removed from the page.
-::::::::Yes there are some negitives, hard fought inclusions from me. If those were removed and one editor remained all that would be left are positives. Notice the long list of references from the Swiftfox site, specifically against the advertising explanation, that requires 3rd party backing up of claims. But your opinions are your own, I do not seek to change them. Thank you for giving us your definition of advertising.[[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - merge error. Fixed. Just look at the timings and the type of edit. This is crystal clear. That is not vandalism.

Generally, I have done many merges, due to your smaller edits vs my longer ones, sometimes merging a handful of times before I can post. Errors sometimes happen. Widefox 14:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not crystal clear to me, because the areas you say you are merging and what was deleted are in 2 different sections and unrelated. But I will accept it per the assume good faith guideline. Kilz 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that if an allegation this serious is not clear to you, then please ask a third opinion. You do not have to assume good faith in this case - the facts are crystal. I consider FUD a continuation of this allegation. It is up to you whether you remove your accusation. Widefox 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC) modified Widefox 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not FUD. The allegation is clear, what isn't clear is how a comment in a different section got deleted, and not replaced. I could see if it ended up in a different section because that would have been a merger. But the comment is completely gone. So yes, I have to assume good faith if I am to excuse this. Even though your actions of late do not merit me believing it. I will not push this because you claim it was an accident, I will not lower myself...Kilz 00:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If I understand this, you want a clear allegation, but not a clear resolution. Widefox 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I will it not push this any farther. But I am not going to delete it and pretend it never happened. I hope that is enough of a resolution for you.Kilz 17:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So no clear resolution for a major accusation. Widefox 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Removal

There is a new case of Widefox removing one of my comments from this page. This edit, did copy some material from my talk page. But my comment, signed by be at 12:32 was made on this page. In fact he removed a whole section I had placed here because it did not belong on my talk page. While he placed the comment on my talk page. It was never there orignaly That is blanking on this page, where it was added.Kilz 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The text was moved back to its original place [20]. Kilz - please do not waste everyone's time my moving text out of your user talk page (vandalising it), and then when it is moved back claim vandalisation!

Also, excuse me, there was no first one - it was a merge error as is clear and apologised for above. You refused to resolve that above, but you continue to use it.

Lastly, it is clear from my edit history that I am not just a single issue editor. I experience a problem only on 1 out of the 900 articles I edit. You have a problem with 1 out of 1 issues that you edit (Swiftfox/Iceweasel = Firefox licence issue), so I do not appreciate trying to turn the problem around. I have repeatedly suggested you edit some more articles to get some perspective, and helped you at the beggining. You actions wrt Swiftfox have resulted in bans and warnings in other forums. It is not my fault you bring that here. Widefox 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. You removed a section of text, my comment. From this page where it orignated. The 12:32 comment signed by me was made on this page. "I thought it read better. I also dont check other articles to make sure they all match. But I have checked and you are correct they all are written this way. But I dont think I am held in my edits to check other pages of Wikipedia on how they are writtenKilz 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)" You removed it from this page. That you coppied onto my talk page does not matter. The comment was made here. There is no 12:32 edit by me on my talk page. Kilz 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing edits

I have found some edits that remove words and the meaning of past edits. These edits were not striked out but blanked or changed. I question why they happened.

• Example 1 Below line 609

This is a ongoing summary section. That is made clear at the top of the section, and with all my edit summaries. I will not comment on further allegations as I leave this to others, this clearly has gone too far. Widefox 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Arcording to WP:TPG

• Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Strike-through looks <s>like this</s> and ends up like this.

You have removed things. They are not striked out. By the guideline you are not allowed to do this. This one removed the fact you tried to exclude any comment from a section. Kilz 00:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Example 2 Below lines 297 and 361

Mostly adding links and fixing spellings. Widefox 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

These entire sections were removed, they are not "spelling"

• "vandalism. I shall escallate that according to the rules of vandalism. I tell you this in advance not to warn you, but so you know that I will follow the standard procedure"
• "Facts are Facts as you say, and I still wait for you to add one to the above, so we may reach consensus. My conclusion, so far is that you are simply going against WP:ECOI"

Kilz 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Example 3 Claiming adding Extension fixes problem that Swiftfox dosent add a feature. An extension is not a feature when it was disputed in discussion area.

updating status. (changed status from "not fixed" to "fixed".) What is wrong with that?

Only problem is, it was disputed, you changed one word and didnt strike it, removing a problem that still existed.Kilz 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Example 4 Removed comment below line 611

dito. ?

No, this was not one word, but this.

• "needs ref added to justify claim of difference Firefox->Swiftfox, needs qualification - ref as to what xft without FT2 affects (I have no idea, so would suggest removal of complex claim)"

This should have been striked. Kilz 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Exapmle 5 line 809 Changing his comment an hour later removing words that do not assume good faith. Kilz 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Reworded. no meaning has changed. I am still waiting for you to resolve that issue. Widefox 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The words "personal attack" do not assume good faith, you removed them. Kilz 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Example 6 Below line 755 Removing WP:ECOI and accusation. Kilz 14:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit even lists the change! This really is wasting our time.

With a page as big as [Talk:Swiftfox] , only by maintaining some editing discipline of the summary sections and updating them will anything get solved. I did not start editing that pag so, but only as a last resort. If anyone has a better suggestion, please say so. Widefox 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Shows you changing accusations. Kilz 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look at these diffs. Addhoc 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can't see anything that is contrary to the advice of WP:REFACTOR... Addhoc 19:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion he wasnt just making things read better by changing a word here or there. In those cases it may be. But when complete sentances are removed it WP:TPG

Arcording to WP:TPG

• Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Strike-through looks <s>like this</s> and ends up like this.

Kilz 20:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

removing Swiftfox author

(Copied from my talk page to the articles page Kilz 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) )

I do not understand your edit [21]. You have removed the authors name. I have replaced this (see my edit summary), to keep this in the same style of the other firefox build articles. Please do not remove information without giving a reason, and also changing from the style of equivalent articles. Widefox 12:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it read better. I also dont check other articles to make sure they all match. But I have checked and you are correct they all are written this way. But I dont think I am held in my edits to check other pages of Wikipedia on how they are writtenKilz 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we can agree on this. I do recommend looking and editing other articles, so that you may get more perspective on the style issues, especially emphasis of issues. Widefox 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll close the mediation case, if the dispute is resolved... Addhoc 23:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It isnt resolved. Nothing has been said or changed. Exactly what is the procedure for this case? Was it to solve the dispute that was posted and talked about in the Summaries? I also dispute some of the things Widefox say's are fixed. Kilz 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, possibly my understanding of what constitutes a dispute is too narrow - in my capacity as mediator, I usually attempt to find a compromise solution to edit wars or talk page disputes. Also, to be honest, I found the "Summaries" confusing. Finally, my role isn't to guide this article towards featured status, merely to resolve the dispute.

Keeping all of that in mind, could you briefly outline how you want the current version of the article to be changed?

Alternatively, instead of attempting mediation, you could try negotiation using advocates from the AMA...

Thanks, Addhoc 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure , Briefly. This is not a complete list.

• Return of fact that while Swiftfox is packaged for Debian, with its own page, and no other distro, It dosent follow the DFSG.
• Removal of test/benchmark data that does not include Swiftfox.
• Rewrite to make it clear that some of the "added" things are just extensions that any user could add.
• For Widefox to stop requiring me to make every change I want to make part of some discussion while he feels free to do whatever he pleases.
• For Widefox to assume good faith.
• For Widefox to stop removing things from the talk page.

Like I said this is a brief list. I could go on and on. Kilz 22:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

• For the Swiftfox is packaged for Debian info, could you provide a reference.
• For the proposed removal of benchmark data, could you indicate which sentences you want to remove.
• For the extensions rewrite, could you also provide a reference.

Thanks again, Addhoc 12:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, here are some references, but in some cases the references are already on the swiftfox page but shouldnt be on the page.

• This is the Debian page on the Swiftfox site, http://getswiftfox.com/debian.htm. Notice the pages is linked as Debian in the top menu bar on all pages, there is no other Distro mentioned. Also notice the name in the url of the Debian page, the pages title, and the name on the page. The page even has instructions on how to add the swiftfox repository to a Debian install. Swiftfox is packaged in .deb files (the Debian package format)linked on that page. With instructions on how to use apt and dpkg to install them. But by the DFSG Swiftfox is non free because the Swiftfox lixcense restricts redistribution.
• The Firefox data section. The Benchmarks referenced as 13 and 14 do not contain Benchmark data where Swiftfox was included.
• The Additional options section on the page are extensions and plugins from 3rd parties. The wording tries to say they are not in Firefox. But they are extensions, anyone can add them. The references in that section prove this.

Kilz 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, could Widefox explain why he considers these changes are inappropriate... Addhoc 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure Addhoc. For balance, afterwards I will then list the outstanding things that I'd like fixed....

1. repackaged. DFSG is the old "non-free" issue above. This issue has reached consensus above, Swiftfox must not be labelled "non-free" as Kilz has previously unilaterally labelled. Kilz must just accept that. This is the general POV problem - further Debian issues are not relevant - this article is about Swiftfox NOT Debian/Ubuntu. In particular, it is an abuse of Wikipedia to use this article as part of a Debian/Ubuntu packaging dispute between Kilz and Jason. Persistence in the face of consensus just exposes this further.

2. This has been justified above - they are all referenced and justified as pertinent to Swiftfox in the article and above. Example - Firefox slow start is fixed by Swiftfox. Firefox criticism pertinent as Swiftfox fixes that problem. Removal of justification for Swiftfox notability is not welcome.

3. Don't understand need for change - things added are already clear e.g. link to XForms already provided. Duplication not needed. Clarify - they are in Swiftfox, and not in Firefox.

Widefox 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I appreciate that much of this has been said elsewhere.

• 1. Ok, regarding this issue, Centrx does appear to agree with you, Widefox. Also, regarding what Kilz is saying, you seem to want me to read quite a lot into what is displayed in a website. In this context, I'm inclined to agree with Widefox, unless there is a more definitive source to the contrary.
• 2. The benchmark data section appears to be reasonably ok; I'm not convinced that non-relevant material has been included.
• 3. Regarding the extensions, how much of a rewrite are we talking about? Currently we have "Swiftfox contains the following items not in Firefox", could we replace this with "Swiftfox contains the following items which are not supplied with Firefox"?

Addhoc 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• 1 While the Swiftfox site license page states that it is non free. But I'm not suggesting that the license be changed from proprietary to non free in the infobox. This is what the discussion above dealt with, stating that the license was non free in the infobox. Centrx above stated "The point is you can take the item out of the infobox and put in the text something like "It is available at no cost." "Non-free" is not clear to the average reader and should not be used unless it is actually in the Debian non-free repository, and there only in reference to that".
  I'm not proposing replacing proprietary with non-free in the infobox. But inclusion of information that while the Swiftfox site actively promotes the application for Debian, that Swiftfox dose not follow the DFSG. That is why I asked you to look at the site. There is enough information on the Swiftfox site to prove it is being distributed for use in Debian. The license also violates the dfsg, which the Swiftfox site admits. Not in the infobox that didnt have enough room, but its own section, to make it clear to the reader.
• 2The Benchmark tests do not include Swiftfox. The Benchmarks are 2 years old and predate Swiftfox. They cover obsolete versions, on old hardware. In fact the article says it used beta versions of Firefox 1.5. Secondly, there is no reference anyplace that Swiftfox is built to fix any speed problem with firefox. Widefox says its "implied", thats original research. Thirdly there is no benchmark data that Swiftfox starts faster. The article states Swiftfox "it does actually startup noticeably faster than Firefox, which is nice." but there is no data to back it up. The only data is that it may have a slight page rendering improvement. Which Widefox refuses to put in exact numbers of .12 th of a second.
• 3 How about "Swiftfox contains the following extensions and plugins that are available for Firefox."

Kilz 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)