Talk:Firefox/Archive 3

message: There is no wiki about Gecko. Would someone knowledgable (not me!) make one and make a link from "The builds use the latest Gecko core (1.8b4) as a basis" to the new page? It would be very interesting to know since it's the "core" of Firefox and other browsers.
:Huh? We have the Gecko article. --minghong 04:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gecko 

message: I've created a combination of the Firefox and Wikipedia logo. Feel free to use it how/where you want. -- BRIAN0918  02:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not use this logo as it is soon to be deleted, see  ed g2s • talk 12:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This appears to be a derivative work of the Firefox logo, which I'm told is distributed under rather egregious terms for an open-source project. What can you say about the copyright status of your combination logo? --FOo 03:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it a parody. :)   BRIAN0918  03:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Didn't we take someone to task for posting a modified Firefox logo with the Soviet flag in the background? Shouldn't we give this image the same treatment in consideration of fairness? --Jtalledo (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if you like. Boo! Hiss! Bad logo! --Bonalaw 15:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Firefox & Wikipedia logo

message: This article needs to updated to reflect the change of version numbering for "Deerpark" from 1.1 to 1.5
:"The next planned release of Firefox was supposed to be version 1.1, but has been renamed to 1.5"  What else needs to be changed?  --taestell 20:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
:In fact, I'm waiting for the release of 1.5, so that the whole future developement section can be replaced with something new and less messy. And I agreee with tasetell that the only change was the version number (similar to Java 1.5 which is marketed as Java 5.0). --minghong 10:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated 

message: Isn't it a self-reference to list the Wikipedia extension () in the external links? --pile0nadestalk | contribs 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The extension does not appear to still be listed in the external links, but it does appear in the text of the article.  While this information is useful for someone looking at the article on Wikipedia, I can see your point that when the material is used on a non-Wikipedia page it seems out of place.  It should probably be removed, though perhaps the article should mention that popular websites google, yahoo, dictionary.com, and wikipedia are all searchable through a special search feature.  The other problem is that there is not just "one" wikipedia engine, but several. Theshibboleth 02:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioned the keyword search feature and listed the five provided "out of the box", including Wikipedia. --Bonalaw 06:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are at least two instances in this article where Firefox services are mentioned with regards to their applications toward Wikipedia.  These are inappropriate self-references and should be removed, particularly given the context in which they are applied.  If references to Wikipedia are to be included as site-specific applications provided by Firefox, then there should be a comprehensive list of other sites to which Firefox also has devoted applications.  Niffweed17 03:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia extension in External links: Self-reference? 

message: I copied my question from the screenshot's talk page, but nobody answered: --   13:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Would it be possible for this image to be released under the GFDL? Firefox (and all Mozilla software, for that matter) is free software, and I've seen plenty of GFDL'd Linux (and other GPL'd software) screenshots on Wikipedia. I am aware that Linux and Firefox aren't licensed under the same license, but would it be possible for MPL'd software to have GFDL'd screenshots? --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ 18:40, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
:But the Firefox logo is not free. It is copyrighted/trademarked and it is shown as a tiny icon on the screenshot. --minghong 03:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The screenshot's license 

message: With the launch of Mozilla Corporation, code will NOT be developed by Mozilla Foundation, but other organizations and individuals (including MoCo). But MoCo is wholly owned by MoFo. What should be use for the "developer" field in the software infobox? --minghong 15:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mozilla Corporation - 81.174.247.96 04:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasoning please? --minghong 12:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the role of the Mozilla Corporation? The Mozilla Corporation is responsible for productizing and distributing Firefox, Thunderbird, and related branded products built on the Mozilla open source code base.  Also: The Mozilla Corporation will have approximately 36 employees.  The Mozilla Foundation currently has three employees.  But since the Mozilla Foundation controls and directs the Corporation and the Corporation was formed only for tax reasons, I would leave the developer as the Foundation. --Pmsyyz 15:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. After all, MoCo is wholly owned by MoFo. e.g. for a product produced by a subsidiary of Microsoft (e.g. IE team, MSN team), the "developer" should still be Microsoft, right? --minghong 16:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the same thing. The IE and MSN teams are not subsidiaries, they're business units or divisions. The Mozilla Corporation is a subsidiary and as such has a separate legal existence. - 81.174.247.96 14:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  The Mozilla Corporation was formed to develop Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird. It will employ Firefox developers, manage Firefox releases, distribute Firefox binaries and provide Firefox support. Put "Mozilla Corporation (a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation)" if you want to explicitely note that the Corporation is part of the Foundation. - 81.174.247.96 15:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my understanding, MoCo is created since MoFo was making too much profit for a non-profit organization. --minghong 16:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is more like there were some deals they wanted to do to promote Firefox that they couldn't do as a non-profit.  Also, one of the developers said that businesses know how to talk to a business, but don't know how to talk to a non-profit. --Pmsyyz 17:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Sort of. Non-profits are very restricted in the types of revenue they can receive and business-like stuff they can pursue. Corporations aren't. Hence the Corporation. Organizationally, future Mozilla Firefox releases will come from the Mozilla Corporation, which is a taxable wholly-owned subsidiary of the not-for-profit Mozilla Foundation. - 81.174.247.96 20:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Developer" of Firefox, Thunderbird, etc 

message: why does article on firefox needs to include comments on ie's lack of png support i think it is not neccesery
:The article merely mentions that Firefox contains PNG support, as opposed to Internet Explorer. The article does not target IE's flaws specifically but instead uses them to show Firefox's features though comparison.--Sampi 02:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for PNG in IE 

message: I thought it was Wikipedia policy that browser screenshots should always show Wikipedia's front page, the current screenshot show this article instead. Any thoughts? --Berkut 06:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMNSHO there are these issues : Not front page. User logged in. Not default theme + etc. It does however have a recursing screen shot of the page ( look closely ). I prefer : . Also take a look at Wikipedia:Software_screenshots --2mcm 08:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Reverted to the original correct one. --minghong 12:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browser screenshot 

message: Market share dropped around 7.5% because of Netscape bug that identify itself as Firefox.
Many news said, the bug raised the Firefox share about 1%.
:What's the reference? --minghong 01:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would be really nice if you had cited some sources regarding this claim. As it is, I had to look it up. And yes, it does look like these claims hold water. .  Second, please avoid personal attacks. They're not very productive at all. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market share dropped again 

message: Could add to Developer Tools a reference to the extensions, I for one use the Web Developer extension daily. Jwestbrook 21:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Developer Tools

message: Will Firefox users ever be able to search for text in Wikipedia edit boxes??? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-22 20:41
: I used to be able to search in the edit box using Firefox v.0.9x, but after my upgrade to v.1.07 that capability disappeared. It looks like a Firefox change and not a Wikipedia problem, so programming wizard will have to write an extension that allows searching in the edit box. Or we could try to arrainge a mass bug report/feature upgrade protest from Wikipedia's Firefox users. BlankVerse 02:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can... don't know what is different but I can. Shark Fin 101 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't search in a textarea using Firefox. Bug 252371 . There's an extension at the bottom that fixes it (somewhat unintuitively) but it works. Get it here. Off-topic: I'm looking for a bookmarklet/userscript that does this. Gflores Talk 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compatability with Wikipedia forms

message: Since it's not that much different than in the article, I didn't do any editing, but the Washington Post just reported that for Sept 2005 page views, Firefox had a  16.705% share.  BlankVerse 02:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage stats

message: Here is the thing. When IE7 comes out, people will use IE7, not Firefox.
I'm talking about regular and normal users, NOT talking about hi-teched or geeks. you know, most people still uses IE6(about 90% in the world).
I know, people like us use firefox. You see, just like Linux or Mac.
To be realistic, IE with better things than previous version, more will use IE7. even some firefox users will turn into IE7 users(It already has better things than firefox, even better than the deer park.).
You see, think of the real world, not just geek or hi-teched. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.48.9.222 (talk • contribs) 08:19, November 4, 2005.
:blasphemy!        :-) J\/\/estbrook       13:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, simply inappropriate speculation for an encyclopedia. If you think you know what the market is going to do, go put your money in a prediction market. --FOo 17:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's see, IE7 is to be available only for XP SP2 and Vista. We won't see it in a lot of XP machines, since it'll be available as a separate download, and if they do that they'll probably hear about Firefox anyway. As for Vista, we're not even confident if it'll sell as much as XP did. --210.5.113.177 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  After IE7 comes out, IE will up again 

message: Why does the infobox caption consist of a seemingly random tidbit about the "Latest Headlines" Live Bookmarks? It seems to me that a broader piece of info in the box would probably be more useful to readers. Thebogusman 04:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True - it's not descriptive of what the screenshot is illustrating either. It should be changed. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption

message: This article is crawling dangerously close to the infamous 50 KB mark. Any suggestions regarding trimming the article down a bit? --Jtalledo (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about stripping the IE-bashing and "omg teh firefox is soo great"-fanboi-isms? This should cut 2/3 of the bullshit. 84.161.238.146 18:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically did you have in mind? Adrian.baker 05:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page size

message: Why Firefox cannot support ActiveX (or am I wrong)? If I am not, why isn't this a part of Firefox, but an optional  plugin?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox doesn't support ActiveX because it's a proprietary IE-only thing, and also because it's notoriously insecure and unsafe. Many people also likely won't need ActiveX (I rarely ever run into sites requiring it), so the plugin is optional — if you need it, you can always install it. The plugin is also a bit unstable, from what I've heard. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right it is very unstable. But ActiveX can and will run on FireFox. Ocasiionally though I have to use IE if I want to run ActiveX. Shark Fin 101 22:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  It is exactly as proprietary and insecure as Firefox' extension - no sandboxing at all, no regression-testing... 84.161.238.146 18:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ActiveX]] 

message: Obviously, some discussion over which links are relevant to the Firefox article. Personally, I agree with Minghong's decision to remove those third-party links. . Beachy, Firefox-ko is not an external link, it's an article on WP that may be of interest to Firefox users. The link you're persistently adding, while it may be related to Firefox, is already a Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox page. Maybe that link can go there. What do others think? Gflores Talk 01:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We should remove all the links except informational ones. Links to alternate builds and forums and such would go to go too though. There's already a Secunia link there and that's what's important. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your support. Wikipedia is not a link farm. :-) --minghong 16:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: From the article, "To combat what they saw as the Mozilla Suite's software bloat, they created a pared-down browser, with which they intended to replace the Mozilla Suite.". This should be the "aim" of the "Firefox project". So there is no need to replace this again in the introduction paragraphs. --minghong 17:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made some good balancing NPOV edits recently, Minghong - on this and the IE article. --Beachy 18:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aim of "Firefox project"

message: I added the version numbers of Firefox that the Wikipedia extension listed would work with perfectly here.  The problem with Firefox 1.5 + that extension is that the TAB and INSERT keys cause a dialog "insert link" to pop up on any page viewed anywhere on the internet which is extremely annoying.  The extension still works otherwise but it appears to be an abandoned project. --That Guy, From That Show! 10:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Firefox Wikipedia Extension vs Firefox v1.5

message: Isn't it on Mozilla Corporation now? I saw the message on Mozilla Foundation site that "Firefox and Thunderbird have a new home ... at Mozilla.com" Infobox says "Maintainer:Mozilla Foundation" --manop 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation as noted at the bottom of the pages at mozilla.com (not .org!) --That Guy, From That Show! 10:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes its a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, but Bungie is owned by Microsoft; Halo is still developed by Bungie even though Microsoft owns it.  So shouldn't it work sort of the same way here? Simonkoldyk 02:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mozilla Foundation/Mozilla Corporation 

message: Let's just vote for deletion… :-/
*Delete - As mentioned, Wikipedia is not for myth. Not to mention that the article is not even actuate. --minghong 01:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every browser (or any software) has it's own limitations or problems.   Criticisms of Firefox makes that quite clear and it's not like anyone here seriously wants to hide all information that's not positive about Firefox.  Good criticism isn't a bad thing.  People can easily find it at the above linked Wikipedia page.
*Delete - We could have every tom dick and hary setting up "myth" sites and then linking them as a resource. An opinion by an unknown person has to justify itself very highly on the accuracy or interest scale. -- Chris Q 08:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for deletion

message: I've just put back my custom keyword repository wiki. Since there is a full paragraph dedicated to Custom Keywords I would suggest adding a link to (what I believe to be) the largest list available in one place.
http://www.wormus.com/leakytap/internet/customkeywords
Awormus 14:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody has any objections I'll add the link Awormus 13:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The link to my Custom Keywords repository was removed by an anon in [this] edit. I think the link is a good resource since the article already has a section dedicated to custom keywords. This page has been up for the last 2 years, it comes up second place in google when searching for "Custom Keywords" I'm not spamming, this is just a good resource. I won't be re-adding it myself, but if someone thinks the article could use it go ahead and add it.Awormus 10:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom Keywords 

message: Fixed a few grammatical errors and edited for clarity; previous text sometimes shifted between second and third person "the user/'s" and "you/your". Rexmorgan 05:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical errors 

message: Predicted that Firefox's market share will reach 40 percent. "I foresee Firefox doubling its audience as more people fall for its higher level of security"  download.com staff predictions
--Adam1213 Talk + 05:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just some random guy's speculation, it doesn't seem too terribly relevant or actually based on a study of the matter. I don't think it would contribute much. --FOo 06:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha ha ha! Firefox/OSS zealotry at its most transparent --Beachy 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion to add prediction that market share will reach 40% 

message: I'll tell you what.  Why NOT ActiveX? I say. Many research companies say, "Because of no activex support with firefox, it can't display almost 15% of web pages all over the world. This is huge problem, right? 
Firefox with ActiveX would be perfect web browser and then, nobody will use IE. I think firefox can handle ActiveX just like ActiveX OptIn in IE 7 build 5299(the leaked build) and it will be no problem with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.48.10.227 (talk • contribs) .
:Several things:
*This is not really the right place for this debate.
*Talk pages are for discussing current, past, or potential issues about the article itself, not so much its subject matter.
*It says in the article, and on the mozilla site why.
*The reason for it would be that removal of active X is indeed a way to make the browser more secure.  Whether or not it is practical may be a matter of opinion, or may not be, but doesn't need to be discussed here.
--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More things:
*If any research company said "Because of no activex support with firefox, it can't display almost 15% of web pages all over the world." they would be completely wrong. It's rare to happen upon a site that doesn't work in Firefox.
*The goal of the Mozilla Foundation is to promote standards. Supporting ActiveX, a proprietary technology, would be counter to that goal.
-- Schapel 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Plug-in For Hosting ActiveX Controls --Adam1213 Talk + 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why NOT firefox with ActiveX? 

message: internet explorer - 85%
mozilla firefox - 10%
the others - 5% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom2006 (talk • contribs) .
:Tom, what is your source for the above data? --M@thwiz2020 02:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those numbers look close to what's currently reported for the Usage share of web browsers. It looks like "the others" are roughly divided into (to the nearest percent): other gecko - 2%, safari - 2%, opera - 1%, others 0% -- Schapel 03:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  simple usage share data worldwide in common  

message: Hi!
I can't see Mozbackup article It isn't important? homepage, I'm in a Hungarian Wiki --193.6.138.75 17:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MozBackup]]?? 

message: Article needs to be updated for Bon Echo release. See Nightly Builds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerzworld (talk • contribs) 
:The latest version/latest beta version refers to the releases, not the nightly builds.  A list of releases arranged by date last modified can be found here. --M@thwiz2020 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true, nightly builds shouldn't count as a release. The official 2.0a1 isn't supposed to be released until Friday I believe. However, Gamerzworld may have meant that the newly implemented features should be made more prominent in the article since the nightly builds at this point do give a good idea of what the alpha release will be. I personally believe that we should wait until the Alpha 1 release to be sure how everything is supposed to work. --Kamasutra 03:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The alpha will be released this Friday?  Woohoo!  The roadmap does say Q1 2006, which is quickly drawing to a close. --M@thwiz2020 20:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The roadmap is outdated just so you know. They are over a month behind schedule already. The final release isn't expected until August or so, but that's fine with me. Keep in mind that the Alpha 1 is marked as a developer preview, so the end user would do well to wait until at least Alpha 2 (expected in May). --Kamasutra 01:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says to leave a message, so here it goes. The release can be found here and it is official. --Kamasutra 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why didn't they update Firefox's site with this? —    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox's site is for end users and Bon Echo is for testers and developers only, perhaps? -- Schapel 18:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  This is only the first alpha release and as I said is a developer preview, so putting any information on the main part of the site wouldn't be very useful. The site for the new version is http://www.mozilla.org/projects/bonecho/ if you want to check it out. --Kamasutra 19:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, Bonecho did come out but not until 8 hours after the comment starting "The roadmap is outdated..."  Now it is okay to update the template, so I'll remove the links and comments. --M@thwiz2020 22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire Fox 2.0 (Code name Bon Echo) 

message: I'm sorry that the 'Moezilla' thing was wrong, but... well, according to the Moezilla page, they're basically mascots, similar to OS-tans, pretty much for Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird and Opera... srely they deserve a mention? Sounds like they DO have something in common, or Firefox-ko at least. VJ Emsi 16:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moezilla 

message: My firefox signature button is no longer working.  Has there been a wikipedia software change, that might have caused this, because it used to work a few days ago.  Putting in tildes by a hand.Technicaltechy 17:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the buttons have recently been enabled in Konqueror. See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5572 --MarSch 09:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if that "fix" broke firefox.  I guess not, otherwise more people would be encountering this problem.  Maybe I've disabled scripts or something in my preferences.  Thanks. Technicaltechy 20:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that this is really the place to discuss it, but NONE of the editor buttons work in Firefox for me anymore.  At home or at work (not that I edit WP from work, ho hum).  I was thinking about posting in the Computer Help area about it, but I'm not sure anyone is actually monitoring that. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 16:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  signature button not working 

message: If so what's the code for it? CMIIW 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe  is close enough... GregorB 20:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  says "This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox."  That implies using Firefox to access Wikipedia (contributes). --M@thwiz2020 21:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - implemented it.  CMIIW 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a 'This user uses Mozilla Firefox to access Wikipedia' tag? 

message: Should we add :Image:Main Page Firefox 2.jpg as the main image? It is a picture of firefox on the main page, with firefox tabs, extensions, themes, firefox's bokmark toolbar, and firefox's ability to curve borders on the "edit this page" tab. I think this shows a better example of firefox than the one they have currently. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 05:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Main Page Firefox 2.jpg]] 

message: I use Firefox to browse Wikipedia and other websites.  I often use the Control +/- function to make the text larger or smaller.  For some websites this works really well because the lines of text stay the same width.  For other sites though, the lines of text get wider and wider so that I have to scroll back and forth horizontally just to read them.  On some sites, like Wikipedia, when I make the text larger it makes the lines get narrower and narrower.  
So is there anything you can do with your Firefox settings or extensions to fix this problem, or is it just up to the webpage designers (including those who maintain the MediaWiki software) to code their pages better to fix this problem?
Any help with this would be much appreciated.  I've got a small monitor, and I often need to make the text bigger so that myself and others can read it without being real close to the screen.  Thanks!
:I have asked your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. -- Chris Q 07:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an answer there now -- Chris Q 11:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you insist on helping these people?  This is not a helpdesk.  The talkpages are reserved for ARTICLE RELATED discussion only.  I reverted this asinine comment once and he just put it back. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you insist on biting the newbies? Sometime being helpful is a good thing especially when they're not familiar with Wikipedia policy. Sasquatch  t|c 00:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As a side note, I also wouldn't be calling other user's comments "asinine" as it's bordering on a personal attack. Just try to be nice and have patience with new users. Remember, we were all new once. Sasquatch  t|c 00:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We were all new, but some of us read various guidelines and policies like good little wikipedians before posting. As for the word Asinine, I chose the most gentle word I could to still get my point across.  This comment most certainly did excercise a lack of judgement, specifically the second time around when the user reverted my actions, obviously knowing what they are doing.  There is a fine line between biting newbies and doing what needs to be done.  I didn't bite until bitten, and I would do it again.  Normally I'm perfectly complacent about new-user issues but this page is abused as a help page too much, and when a user has the gall to revert an edit asserting that, problems arise.  WP:BITE is not policy, and as a result, when it serves the greater good, I have no qualms in breaking it.  In this case it needed to be broken.  Unless an example is set it will keep happening.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 06:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text-zooming 

message: I wanted the opinions of the editors of this article whether there should be a change of referencing style from the current footnote to m:Cite.php. Nothing wrong with the way it works in this article but I feel its easier to maintain the latter. Also, I would request the active editors to move the external links within the article to bottom (using footnotes or other kind of referencing). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be good  --Zr2d2 20:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion invited 

message: This is the main stumbling block whenever any other browser tries to compete - Most people have never even contemplated the very existence of an alternative browser.
This comment seems like it doesn't belong on an encylopedia page, is not specific enough for this topic, and is more of an opinion.  Although I agree with the sentiment, I believe this could be worded better.  Does anyone know a better way to say this?  Otherwise I would probably relegate this comment to a discussion page. Josh Clarkson 21:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this statement about Firefox specifically? 

message: Most of the criticism is refuted inside the topic, however done so in an extremely minor way.  And in addition, most of the criticism is incorrect.
For instance web pages arn't appearing the same as in IE, is correctly attributed to be a page problem, not a browser problem however then it shouldn't be criticism, rather "false criticism".
If everything being asked for is available as extensions, then it's a feature that it's extendability, not a fault that these "features" arn't available Navtively, especially when most of them are not needed or not wanted by large groups of users, and leads to bloatware.
This is like complaining that my PC program doesn't work on Macintosh, or I need to load drivers on a PC to get certain features, such as network connectivity.  
These two should be called "opinions" rather than "criticism" seeing as they are highly opinionated, and are not the companies faults, or have been addressed since the beginning.
Obviously load times is a problem and criticism and such, but these two are hard to call "criticism"--Kinglink 19:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism overly opinionated, should be renamed "Opinions" 

message: I've reverted AlistairMcMillan's removal of the reference to Safari in the fourth paragraph:
:Firefox has attracted attention as an alternative to other browsers such as Microsoft Internet Explorer and Apple Safari, which are included as standard with versions of Windows and MacOS X respectively.
This sentence isn't suggesting that Firefox is vastly better than Safari and that there is an overwhelming demand for it's replacement.
It's merely pointing out Firefox's position an as alternative browser. As such, I see no reason for it's removal.
Rishi 03:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Rishi's views, as I originally added 'Apple Safari' to the sentence. The reason for this is not only because it is an alternative, but there seems to be a distinct prejudice against Microsoft, which is inappropriate in an encyclopaedic article. However high Microsoft's market share is or however it achieved that share is immaterial. Therefore the addition is merely strivance for objectivity. --Rcandelori 11:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefox as an alternative to Safari 

message: While the Mozilla foundation was founded in the United States, I do believe that since the browser is a co-operative development from people all over the world, it would be more appropriate to use Commonwealth or British English spellings for all words as American English usage and spellings are far less prevalent than those of British english. I was accused of "Britishisation" when some preliminary changes were made. What are your thoughts? --Rcandelori 12:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British/Commonwealth English