Talk:Swiftfox/Archive 2

message: On March 26th user Widefox made a controversial edit that removed requests for citations and tags labeling areas relevance and neutrality. This is WP:VAND blanking. User Widefox is asked to discuss these edits before repeating them.Kilz 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your revert Kilz. You have reverted multiple edits without discussing - reverting should be a last resort, not first resort. I have reinstated the edits and to avoid conflict, have included the relevant tag (please see above for resolving that). I have removed the tags I placed due to the cleanup. Please discuss before reverting again, and let's get this last tag dealt with. Widefox 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the first two edits you reverted removed no tags or content. Please explain why you have reverted those? Widefox 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kilz - please read WP:VAND before accusing again, and discuss the content dispute (above) without such complications. Everyone can see there is no "deliberate" attempt to compromise wikipedia, and you have assumed bad faith, which is against the guidelines. FYI the procedure for real vandals is to inform them on their user page. Widefox 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated above, do not redo the vandalism. You have removed multiple tags and requests for citation. This is blanking. Do not remove tags or requests for research unless you place a citation. Your removal of them without placing a citation alters the article to make it appear they were not needed. Removing tags without consensus is wrong. Your redoing the edits is continued vandalism and have been reverted Kilz 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have repeatedly reverted my edits without justification. You are not meant to revert because of content disputes. Please take to an admin if you consider vandalism, else remove your accusation. Widefox 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isnt a content dispute. You are intentionally blanking requests for citation on areas of what I consider original research you have added to the page. I will continue to replace them until you or someone else backs up the statements with links. Kilz 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being uncivil in repeating vandalism claims while providing no evidence. Where is the missing citation request?! If you persist in incorrectly reverting, and being uncivil I shall take this to an administrator to have you banned as previously. Widefox 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of this edit , before you started there were requests for citations on claims you added. In this edit you removed them The citations were in place because IMHO the claims are original research. In fact they were part of the Firefox speed section above. You also removed a relevance tag, while a discussion  on the topic was ongoing. This is blanking, not editing to improve the article, but removing things , not to improve the article, but to make you or your opinions look better. I am nethier being uncivil , or repeting things, because you a second time, after being told what you had done, you blanked the citation requests again. By the way, I know a lot more about the rules than I did last time you tried to twist them and play off accusations in one place against another claim. Your threatening me with a 3 revert rule , while the reverts were over multiple days was funny.Kilz 03:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote that section, therefore removing any possible objection. Kilz - please discuss the current article, not past versions. As to your accusations, they will be seen by all others as unfounded. Do you realise that Swiftfox is largely just a build of Firefox! It's really not that big a deal. Your attacks on the software and author Jason (see history of this page and your talk page for details), due to your licensing dispute with him are clearly creating a problem disproportionate to the importance of this article. Widefox 08:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Widefox, in one sentence you tell me to work on the present article, in the next you go into ancient history with a theory about me that is not true. There is no licensing dispute. Stick to the facts and not wild unproven theory's about me.
You again removed a request for the citations, even rewriting it a little will not change the fact that they are needed, I will just place requests where they are needed in the newest version. Either remove the claims, or add the citations, do not just change the wording of the section a little and remove them. Kilz 11:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your own words you got into a licence dispute with Jason and got banned from various forums including wikipedia. I do not want to go over that again - you have been outed already. Widefox 13:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ancient history, that Jason stopped me from distributing Swiftfox is of no importance. You rely to much on it, he also stopped you from distributing it, and everyone else. My sole motivation is the improvement of this article and that it be as up to date and factual as possible. You now bring up that I have been banned from wikipedia, that has not happened, as you can see this account is the same as the one I have always edited from. That in the past you told lies and used one lie to build on another lie that got be temp restricted because of 3 reverts is a non story. Needless to say, I now know that rule and you wont be able to use it on me again to spread lies.Kilz 16:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But you seem to want to leave in old , nonfactual information, information from unreliable sources, and statements of fact that you cant back up. You then delete the requests for you to back up those statements. You are now twisting the words of another editor, when they plainly go against you and suggest placing an outdated information tag, instead you remove any tag. Looking above it looks like someone agrees with me that the section should be removed. So as I see it, there is one for keeping it, one for labeling it as old information, and 2 to remove it. Kilz 16:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  from what I remember Kilz was banned 1 day for 3RR violation of Swiftfox. Previous to that, Kilz was also banned from the Swiftfox forum, and has been told to move his arguments off at least one other forum I read. Links available Talk:Swiftfox/Archive_1 and User_talk:Kilz/Archive. Widefox 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no ban. Wikipedia makes a distinction between a block and a ban.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, Kilz was never even blocked, [ 67.175.233.209] was blocked. --Iamunknown 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 67.175.233.209 was the static IP of Kilz, and he was blocked 48hrs (not 1 day like I said). Yes he was "blocked" not "banned" (my and his mistaken word). I think we all agree about this. Widefox 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Widefox. That also is an admission that my ip cant be a sockpuppet. Since my ip is static, it cant be anyone but me. This is also an admission on your part that you filed a false sockpuppet claim imho. Kilz 21:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: won't even entertain that conspiracy theory. Widefox 01:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism of Widefox

message: The Out of date information and reliable source tags in the Speed section of the article deal with the fact that they use Firefox 1.5 data. Also that the Citation #12 (Browser speed test) is a private site without any editorial over site. These sections need to be updated and citations replaced with ones relevant to Firefox 2.0. Kilz 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article Firefox also uses FF 1.5 data, which is essentially where this argument is taken from. Are you proposing to change Firefox too? You do realise that FF 1.5 isn't that long ago, both in time and code. Also FF 3 will come out within months, so you are setting a high quality threshold that requires high/if not impossibly high maintenance burden for articles. The bottom line - this is Swiftfox not Swiftfox 2.0.0.3 or Swiftfox 2.0, or Firefox 2.0.0.4pre which is what I'm using right now! Widefox 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not edit the Firefox main page. What the editors of that page do is up to them. But the current browser is what the average reader would believe they are reading about in this article, and in the Firefox one to imho. We as editors should strive to have links and information on the most current released version imho. Isnt that one of the advantages of Wikipedia, that it can be updated, so it doesnt become out of date? Some of the information, especialy in the Browser speed test is dealing with Firefox 1.0, and beta versions of Firefox 1.5, so its even older. I dont think we should be using that information at all because it is very out of date, not to mention from a private site with no editorial over site. We list the current version in the info box, we use up to date info where we can. We should not confuse the reader by listing the current version, then listing data about an older version. Kilz 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edit Firefox (which is star rated), Swiftfox and most/all Firefox related articles. I do not need or request your arbitrary restrictions on version numbers for any of these articles thank you. The article you are talking about is Swiftfox 2.0. Obviously older info is less valid, but equally you or I do not dictate anything, or ring-fence articles. Widefox 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Info point - the current versions of Swiftfox are 2.0.0.3 , 2.0.0.4pre, Trunk, 1.5.0.7  Widefox 08:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That Swiftfox has binaries available for older versions does not make them the current one. Basic understanding and common sense should prove that 1.5.0.7 is an older version than 2.0.0.3. Thank you for posting that, as it shows that Swiftfox stopped working on the 1.5.0 branch early. The download page for 1.5.0 says1.5.0.11 was available. We can see that Swiftfox stopped producing the 1.5.0 branch, making it an older version. Also on the Firefox download page,at the bottom, we see that the end of life for the 1.5.0 branch is April 24, 2007. Since Swiftfox is only a build of the Firefox code with firefox patches, and all versions to date have been the same.  That support for the code and development of any patches for that code will end in 23 days. We now know for sure that the old pages and information in the Swiftfox article will be useless in a matter of days. So Im sure everyone will agree we should seek to replace this old, and in the case of the Browser Speed test, non reliable information. That other articales may contain old and suspect information is not important to the Swiftfox article. Neither is it a reason to include that old and suspect information here.Kilz 13:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim of "current version" is not verified, unlike mine. You admit that 1.5.0 is current. Wikipedia works on verifiability. FYI Firefox 1.5.0.x and 2.0.0.x versions are current versions  Widefox 14:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  1.5.0 is not the current version, 2.0 is. That Swiftfox has older builds from the past for download does not make it the current version. It is verified. Since you cant see the link above that sets the absolute end of life for 1.5.0 , here it is again Firefox download page On the bottom, the 1.5.0 branch reaches end of life April 24, 2007. This also does not mean that 1.5.0 is current, it states that all use should stop as of April 24, 2007. Since Swiftfox is built from Firefox code, and that code is at end of life then, so is any build of it. Second link you cant see (or dont want to see). 1.5.0.11 is the current version Since you state Swiftfox stopped at 1.5.0.7 , it is 4 versions older than the code it is built from.  Kilz 16:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you Kilz. The current version of Swiftfox is 2.0.0.3. This article should be about 2.0. If we can't find references for the speed section for 2.0, the section should be removed. The out of date tag is a good temp solution. That way we warn people that the information is about the older 1.5.0 version. The tag should be left in place until the section has been updated with 2.0 data. I also think we should remove the browser speed test citation. It contains information about Firefox version 1.0 and the beta version of 1.5. IDontBelieveYou 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IDontBelieveYou IDontBelieveYou are anything but a WP:MEATPUPPET! See User:Kilz. Widefox 01:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a way for you to write off opinions you dont agree with. I have no knowledge of who idontbelieveyou is. They have not talked to me , nor have I asked anyone to post here. But, there is now a consensus of editors. That you dont agree with the results is not surprising since they dont agree with you. I recommend you show some proof of your accusations, or take them back and apologize for them. Kilz 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a clear single voice of Kilz and 2 sockpuppets/meatpuppets! That's why I reverted such perversion of wikipedia. You, and the puppets will get permanently banned if you continue! Widefox 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no puppets. You are using this as an excuse for writing off other editors that may not agree with you. Kilz 11:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outdated information and source tags

message: Kilz - I do not understand your strange edit  . You left no comment. It appears to be a partial revert to an old version . Your claim that Pango is is disabled (not removed) is factually incorrect.
$ ldd firefox2004/firefox-bin |grep pango
        libpangoxft-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangoxft-1.0.so.0 (0xb7abe000)
        libpangox-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangox-1.0.so.0 (0xb7ab3000)
        libpango-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpango-1.0.so.0 (0xb7a79000)
        libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 (0xb74a8000)
        libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 (0xb73f0000)
$ ldd swiftfox203/swiftfox-bin|grep pango
        libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 (0xb7b02000)
        libpango-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpango-1.0.so.0 (0xb7a67000)
        libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 (0xb7423000)
This proves libpangoxft libpangox are removed, not disabled. Please justify your claim. I shall fix this error tomorrow. Widefox 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was simply trying improve the factual information and replaced the name of the section to reflect that functionality was missing, not just that the file size was reduced. I have re edited it to replace the fact its been removed. Kilz 02:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a link to the page that says it was removed, thanks Kilz 04:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I fixed your edit. Er, Kilz - this text has been originally added by you !!!  - the burden is on you to justify your claim, else it may be removed! I do believe it is correct, so please find a reference. I have already removed your wrong FT2 removal claim . Widefox 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You originally changed it to read that it was removed, not disabled. Exactly where did you get that secret information from? It isnt in a changelog, it isnt on the swiftfox site How did you know about it? You have proven above that it is the case, but this is something imho that only the builder of the application could have known.Kilz 11:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kilz - is this  your edit? Widefox 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at that time the about:buildconfig said Pango was disabled, also posts on the Ubuntu forums were made about poor text. Jason also posted that it was disabled. But it appears Linuxpickel changed it to read that the files were removed. How they knew when it is listed noplace else is a mystery. How you were in the knowledge of exactly what was removed is also an interesting question. Kilz 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But you have above, exactly how did you know what was missing and what to look for?Kilz 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kilz - your claim is still waiting for a ref. Widefox 10:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pango 

message: I would like to know how the references do not back up the claims. I would like to know what words on the WP:WEASEL page are used to make the tags needed.
Swiftfox offers Debian packages on a page named Debian. That page lists the repository that Swiftfox has setup on its own servers. The repository is listed as non-free, as named in its url "deb http://getswiftfox.com/builds/debian unstable non-free" Swiftfox has(1) to host it as own repositories because the Swiftfox license restricts redistribution of its binaries(2). It also restricts use of the name Switfox and branding. This part of the license effectivly(3) stops Debian and other Linux distributions from having it available as part of a distribution or included in a distributions repository(4).
I have numbered the tags placed.Please use the numbers when referring to tags placed
(1)Section 1 and 4 of the Swiftfox license restrict redistribution by anyone. Distributions are part of anyone. The license is referenced to back up the claim.
(2)The reference is to the Swiftfox license, its sited as a reference (this tag will be removed)
(3)Section 1 and 4 of the Swiftfox license restrict redistribution by anyone. Distributions are part of anyone. The license is referenced to back up the claim.
(4)The reference is to the Swiftfox license, a reference to the license will be added. (this tag will be removed when license reference is added)Kilz 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have waited for a good amount of time for Widefox to explain his reasons for these tags. If there are no explanations about them, they will be removed. Kilz 17:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've rewritten the section, attempting to tackle the supposed use of weasel words. Nameless One 04:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reciently found an article on linux.com (Swiftfox the perverting of an open source browser)about Swiftfox and its problems with redistribution. getswiftweasel.org is another site pointing out the flaws with the licensing and redistribution of Swiftfox. Pages questioning things are starting to be found. IMHO we need to add them when they are from a creditable source. Kilz 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debian Section