Talk:Swiftfox/Archive 1

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Benchmark link

message: 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)
thread_title:  Free download 

message: 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)
replies: text: please discuss and reach consensus with these controversial edits. I include some pointers and discussion below. Widefox 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have given citations for this point. I removed the citation request. Widefox 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Optimisation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: The tag is without reason. See reason above. Widefox 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Firefox benchmarks 

message: 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)
replies: text: The tag is without reason. See reason above. Widefox 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relivance tag

message: 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)
replies: text: just typo. Fixed.Widefox 16:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Info Box 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Firefox TOC 

message: 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)
replies: text: "faster fox" undisputed. I don't understand? - please spellout where you are going with this. Widefox 01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: alternately positive bias making page an advertisement

message: :(new heading added by for navigation purposes Widefox 15:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of problem 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Use of sockpupet 67.175.233.209 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Summary of factual problems and fixes 

message: *  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Unfixed

message: *  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)
thread_title: Fixed

message: (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)
thread_title: Additional Summary of factual problems and fixes

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: RfC done. Cabal also requested. Widefox 12:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Swiftfox