Talk:Swiftfox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Archives
1
This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

I've just archived the talk page, as it was 182KB - much over the recommended maximum of 32KB. 0L1 Talk Contribs 23:49 15/12/2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firefox Speed

The Firefox speed section uses references to very old benchmarks on old equipment. The Softpedia uses Firefox and Swiftfox 1.5. The Softpedia page was made on 30th of November 2005. The Browser Speed Tests are based on Firefox 1.0 and Firefox 1.5 and 2.0 beta versions. The site is also a private site listing the findings of only one person with no editorial oversight and is therefore not a creditable source [WP:RS] per its home page. APC magazine is also based on Firefox 1.5.0.6 a very old build. If we cant find information on the 2.0 version from a reliable source the section needs to be removed IMHO. Secondly we do not need Firefox benchmarks on the Swiftfox page. Comparing the speed of Firefox vs Swiftfox is something that needs to be done on a article we link to. Doing this here is original research [WP:NOR]. This page is also about Swiftfox, not the short comings of Firefox IMHO. Kilz 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the age of the tests and the credentials of their author make this info suspect. Otoh, I disagree that this is inappropriate info in this article. If perceived or actual speed issues

in firefox led to the development of this project, then info about these issues and the extent to which they are corrected is among the most relevant info on the page. I recommend replacing the relevance tag with an "out of date" warning, to push for more reliable sources. Thomas B 19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We have no citation regarding why Swiftfox was created. I placed a request for that citation awhile back. As it is now we cant prove why it was created Kilz 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Thomas B. They are relevant. They are not perfect, but if you know better speed tests then please replace. Please comment here if you also consider the relevancy tag needs removing now that it has an additional warning. Widefox 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE relevance tag - Y Widefox 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas B said that they should stay if it is shown that it was relevant to the creation of the application. We have no proof from creditable sources why Swiftfox was created.Kilz 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Everyone can read the above and decide for themselves. I wish to gain consensus on this Kilz and move on. Please leave space here for others to comment, as is the process. Widefox 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that the reference 12 is the same one used in the main article Firefox which is a Star rated article. Therefore, this section is both relevant and the reference is acceptable. Therefore considering 2 people consider this relevant, and only Kilz objects, I will remove. Widefox 08:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
All of these pre-FF 2.0 test references are now labelled as such. Thomas B - is that how you wanted it? Widefox 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Per your own words "Please leave space here for others to comment, as is the process." stop seeking to influence people. Stop removing the tag while it is still under discussion, as I read Thomases words , he suggests replacing the tag with another one, not its complete removal As you have done while this is still under discussion. Kilz 11:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Let Thomas B, me and others speak for ourselves! Widefox 13:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the section should be removed if current information is not avaliable. It is dealing with an older version. The current article is based on firefox 2.0. The browser speed test site is also a private site and not a reliable source. Loki144 16:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas B said and I quote "Agreed, the age of the tests and the credentials of their author make this info suspect." further "If perceived or actual speed issues in firefox led to the development of this project, then info about these issues and the extent to which they are corrected is among the most relevant info on the page."
User Widefox is directed to read these statements and to understand that we have no citation stating why Swiftfox was created. That the citation requests that he continues to remove were requests for that information. Since we do not have the information the "if" in Thomas's statement isnt satisfied, if is a conditional statement. Without it being satisfied it cant be thought that it is agreeing that the information should be kept. We now have 1 vote for keeping, 1 vote that is conditional, and 2 that say remove. So I will be removing the section since user Widefox has not given the information that is conditional, has removed the relevance tag without replacing it with an out of date tag, and there is a vote that forms a consensus to remove.Kilz 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, it's a good debate here, this sort of scrutiny and compromise tends to result in stronger pages. Okay, number of points:

  • The current page says that Swiftfox makes no claim of increased speed, merely increased optimization, but that seems self contradictory. From dictionary.com, "optimized" (in computing) means "so as to maximize efficiency and speed." An "optimized" browser thus has "maximized speed," or is "faster" in some way. Also, as pointed out before, the name "Swiftfox" implies some speediness over some other foxes. The extent of this improvement is the question of the day.
  • The ideal would be current speed tests comparing the current browsers. Due to the constant progress on these browsers, and due to the contentious nature of benchmarks, this ideal is difficult to reliably maintain. As soon as we get this matter settled for 2.0, 3.0 will likely be coming down the pipe. I'm sympathetic with Loki, without current benchmarks, older comparisons are at best an awkward fix. On the other hand, silence on the issue might suggest no benchmarks have ever been compiled, which might actually be more misleading. There is no comfortable solution here, but I'd err on inclusion, with clear warnings of how dated the info is. I'm not sure if the current wording strongly emphasizes that these speed results are no longer reliable, I could see arguments both ways.
  • Loki also raises a question about the reliability of a citation (I assume Loki means this one?). After consulting Wikipedia:Attribution, I'm still torn here. Scholarship on a private site is acceptable in some instances, but is this such an instance? Is this actual scholarship, or just a blog? Since the current citations are informative but somewhat lacking, I'd be tempted to leave them, but urge their quick replacement as soon as better sources can be found. My Wikipedia:Attribution foo is admittedly weak, so I'll bow to anyone who has a better suggestion on this point. Thomas B 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That was weird, I got no edit conflict warning, your section wasnt here when I started mine. So after reading , I will hold off on deleting the section right now. But I am placing some tags on it so that it may be updated and the unreliable source can be replaced.Kilz 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Swiftfox is a separate build created for each CPU i.e. P4, P3 etc by using compiler settings optimized for that CPU. Secondly, a higher level of compiler optimization. Thirdly, the settings have been adjusted/optimized to values which should give faster browsing. Lastly removing a non-essential part has reduced/optimized the binary size. These are the only things that make Swiftfox more "optimized" than a standard Firefox build. Swiftfox is only an attempt at optimising the build, nothing more really. The definition from dictionary.com that you are quoting seems to be missing the point that one can optimize for many things, not just speed. One can optimize for binary size (which the Firefox build is) - this often actually creates builds that run faster than highly optimized builds as there is a trade-off between the speed of loading a larger binary and the speed of execution. This is a well known microprocessor thing, not a browser or Firefox thing. Bottom line - Swiftfox may be optimized for speed, but it might be for your processor/machine, a size optimized browser will be quicker. Sorry for all the theory.
  • Q: how outdated are FF 1.5 benchmarks? They are good enough for Firefox as I quote above.
  • The whole field of browser benchmarking is quite new AFAIK. I think that could explain the lack of more authoritative speed benchmarks. Until now, the focus has more been on standards compliance and real-world rendering, than head-to-head speed. Watch this space, I suppose. Widefox 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Widefox

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Kilz was banned - see link Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kilz. Widefox 22:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no ban. Wikipedia makes a distinction between a block and a ban.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, Kilz was never even blocked, 67.175.233.209 was blocked. --Iamunknown 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
won't even entertain that conspiracy theory. Widefox 01:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated information and source tags

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)

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)
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)
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)
Info point - the current versions of Swiftfox are 2.0.0.3 , 2.0.0.4pre, Trunk, 1.5.0.7 [1] Widefox 08:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 [2] Widefox 14:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

I have just replaced the tags for out of date information and unreliable sources. The information in the speed section relies on articles on version 1.5.0, they are 2 years old. 1.5.0 is not the current version 2.0 is. No matter how Widefox twists the language , 1.5.0 is not the current version 2.0 is. We have no data to back up the claims on the 2.0 version. We cant rely on old information of past versions to prove points on the current version. Even so the Browser speed test is a private site with no editorial oversight. It is not a reliable source. It needs to be replaced with a reliable source. It also deals with version 1.0 and BETA versions of 1.5 and 2.0. It is ancient by any standard. There is a consensus's to tag the area as out of date. The other option is to delete it altogether. Widefox is asked to either leave the tags in place while up to date info replaces it, or delete the entire section.Kilz 21:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
IDontBelieveYou IDontBelieveYou are anything but a WP:MEATPUPPET! See User:Kilz. Widefox 01:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Pango

Kilz - I do not understand your strange edit [3] . You left no comment. It appears to be a partial revert to an old version [4]. 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)

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)
Please provide a link to the page that says it was removed, thanks Kilz 04:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem - I fixed your edit. Er, Kilz - this text has been originally added by you !!! [5] - 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 [6]. Widefox 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
Kilz - is this [7] your edit? Widefox 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

(unindent) you have still not provided no reference to your claim. Widefox 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But you have above, exactly how did you know what was missing and what to look for?Kilz 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speed

I have rewritten this section - the intro has gone completely. Despite that, the two tags in this section have been replaced. Kilz -please justify their re-inclusion now that the section has gone! FYI I did some checking on browser benchmarks and we are already using the top ranked google hit. We also use a ref used in Firefox. I understand the concern, which is why the text has so many caveats about pre-FF 2.0, and "No authoratative". Considering the paucity of good data, this section is already up-to-date, and refs have all possible caveats. Widefox 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Per your own words below "Swiftfox 1.5 is now not available". The information in the rest of this article reflects the 2.0 version. The Optimization information is about 2.0, the info box states the version is 2.0. Yet we are using statistics from not just 1.5, but 1.0 and beta versions of 1.5. Versions that no longer exist. Even if you place caveats, the information is still about versions that are no longer avilable. The article needs to be updated with benchmarks from the 2.0 version of Swiftfox. No matter how you say it, or how you put it, the data needs to be 2.0 data. Why do I say that?
Lets take a look at the references shall we?
  • Softpedia has no numbers at all, no statistics in any way shape or form. It cant be used to prove anything.
  • The browser speed test, it uses Firefox 1.0 and beta versions of Firefox 1.5. It dose not have any Swiftfox data at all as it predates Swiftfox (yes it is that old). Not only is it dealing with ancient information (that doesnt include Swiftfox), it is a private site "This site was created by Mark "Tarquin" Wilton-Jones" with no editorial oversight. It is not a reliable source WP:RS. We rely on this? Shame on us, it should be removed right now.
On that basis, the Firefox section has no data to prove what it says and should probably be removed. Next is
I was hoping that when we found data on Swiftfox 2.0 that it would be good data, not out of date, apples to oranges comparisons. The more I think about it, the more I believe that we should have just removed the section. But as a compromise, in order to move forward, I was willing to give a chance for good data to be found. It seems that no good deed goes unpunished. For you have pushed and twisted and tried to get this bad data left unmarked and included. I have no idea why.
That Google puts this bad, old information at the top is no reason why we should use it or rely on it. Nor is it a reason to leave it unmarked so that the reader gets false information. Now, exactly why do you keep pushing to have this old, twisted, bad, and untrue information included? Kilz 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
a) can you summarise the above in less than say 100 words ! as per WP:TALK b) Any talk about version restricting the article is in the wrong place - take it to the RfC below - where I believe you have already (more than) stated your view c) then more people will read your reply, which is in your interest. Widefox 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think each and every word above is necessary to give the whole picture as to why we need to update the citations and other information. Kilz 11:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have placed orignal research tag in the speed section and marked out the problem areas. They are calling for conclusions not mentioned in the reference. Kilz 23:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed them, and will add them back later. Widefox 10:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing

Claims of Swiftfox licensing issues (alluding to a controversy) need a reference, as per verifiability. I don't know if Debian tried to package Swiftfox, so what is the issue?! This is no place for WP:OR. Without reference, any claim here can be removed, and I further consider it WP:NPOV violation. This is not distributed by debian! Widefox 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you placed in the section with an edit designed to require this reference. I edited it to state that it cant be distributed by because of conflict with the DFSG, specifically the #1 requirement redistribution, not that they(Debian) tried. The link to the wikipedia DFSG page should be all that is needed as it spells out the requirements of Debian and the DFSG. Also you have placed on the article that a package for Debian installs is available for download. Debian users who read this page should have the information in front of them why it is not included in the Debian repositories. This is important because it of the nature of Debian and that it has a free as in freedom requirement fro inclusion. Kilz 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I asked for a reference. You have made this factual claim, so you must provide a reference or remove it. I know of no issue with Debian trying to distribute Swiftfox, so I additionally believe it violates WP:OR and so should be removed. Widefox 18:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not made a claim that Debian has tried to distribute. What I placed was its a fact they cant because the license goes against the DFSG. As such a link to the guidelines is all that is needed. I disagree that it is a WP:OR issue because I am not asking for a determination that debian has tried. But when a "package for debian installs" is mentioned on the page. Information about that download and why its not in the Debian repositories is important. Kilz 19:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Kilz - you have 3 factual claims on swiftfox that are marked [citation needed] You refuse to provide any link. You must either justify your unsubstantiated claims, or let them be removed as per WP:verifiability "Any edit lacking a source may be removed,.." Widefox 19:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added links to the DFSG as stated, if you are saying you want a little number with a link to the DSFG page I will add it, if removed I will treat is as vandalism (blanking). You are reading into it a claim that isnt there. It is simply a factual statment that the "debian" package dose not follow the DFSG and could/would not be distributed by them. I do not need to try and lift a car to claim that I cant lift it. The Swiftfox license restricts it anyway, so in the end all that is needed for one of them is a reference of the swiftfox license. Kilz 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(continued below for easy reference...)

[edit] Licensing (see here for improper synthesis)

Your claim is one of A + B = C
A = Swiftfox licence
B = DFSG
C = Swiftfox breaks DFSG
Your claim (breaking Debian rule) violates WP:SYN and is therefore WP:OR. You must either provide a reference to the issue, or remove it. Widefox 11:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No its not its 2 claims that dont add up like that. You are streching rules and trying to find any reason to limit the fact on the article.
A Swiftfox license stops redistribution
B Debian cant distribute the Swiftfox binary
So A=B
That it breaks the DFSG is a note that it dose because you mention a Debian binary. I may have to rewrite the section to make it a little more clear. This is not an a + b = c. But Im seeing how that may be the case in a lot of the optimizations and the entire speed section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kilz (talk • contribs) 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC).Kilz 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I found no reference for C, I only found a reference for Kilz violating A [8] [9]. You are best advised not to discuss licence violation issues when you are involved in them yourself! You are not meant to edit articles when you are involved WP:NPOV! Your attempt to draw conclusion C from A and B is clearly WP:SYN. You refuse to provide a reference, so as per rules can be deleted after a few days WP:SYN. You have been making that claim for more than 1/2 year [10], but I say go the extra mile and give you a few more days to find a ref. After that I or other editors can remove this breach of WP:SYN. Breaking WP:OR is fundamental. Widefox 13:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Swiftfox license stops anyone and everyone (including the Debian distro)from redistribution. :"A" is a fact backed up by a reference to the license. That is the only claim in the Download section.
The license is also would not be compatible with the Debian DFSG. That is a fact that can be proved with a reference to the dfsg and the license. You are the one who is reading more into it than that. I have edited away yesterday that debian cant distribute because of the license dose not pass the dfsg. So now there are 2 seperate claims in 2 different sections you are seeking to see add up to a third claim that isnt even mentioned any more. In case you need it spelled out
Download Section
A License says no redistribution by anyone
B Debian is part of anyone
so A=B there is no C or third claim
License section
A DFSG says all compatible licenses must not limit redistribution.
B The swiftfox license says its limits redistribution
B proves A there is no 3rd claim
As you said, your claim of WP:NPOV is old, never proven to be true, and will not in this case. For one I do not use Debian. So there is no possibility of bias. Secondly, the WP:NPOV says and I quote "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly." What that means is that all views should be presented. Not one (the one you push) should be the only view on the page. That each point of view be placed. By removing the point of view of Debian uses when a "package for Debain installs " is mentioned does not make any sense and shows a bias.Kilz 15:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Kilz - each of these are failures:
1. the reference [15] fails WP:A - it is not a reliable source is a mailing-list, and as such not reputable (e.g. no editorial control etc).
2. It also fails WP:A as it is a "Primary source".
3. is hypothetical, so still fails A + B = C . Nowhere in this reference do I see that Swiftfox has/is/or will be stopped from being distributed by Debian, because of DFSG - specifically there is no ruling C. Kilz has simply posed a hypothetical question himself!...
4. ...Kilz's question doesn't even cover the (usual) case of someone uploading a build of software they've made themselves to Debian using the authors code [11]. This makes his hypothetical question irrelevant to the day-to-day activities of Debian [12], and so still fails A + B = C ! Who knows what other issues there are unless Debian actually undertook this themselves. (cf complexity of Firefox Debian).
5 failing WP:A There are further replies to Kilz's question which contradict [13] [14], so it seems that the reference is not even definitive on the matter anyhow!
6. It appears Kilz confuses two separate issues - 1) how Debian is free to make its own packages (see Iceweasel vs Firefox), with 2) how Kilz tried to re-distribute packages from getswiftfox.com (and was told he violated A)! It appears that they tried to spell that out to him too! [15], thus making your whole argument WP:OR WP:SYN.
7. article redundancy - A says nobody can redistribute the files from getswiftfox.com. This whole argument is redundant. e.g. if Kilz contacts GNU to ask if the makers of tar might want to distribute files from getswiftfox.com, they will say they are not allowed to A!
8 Kilz's canvassing for hypothetical re-distributors is clearly WP:OR
9 labouring this redundant point is WP:UNDUE
10 repeating the argument in the download section is not only inappropriate, but a second time further redundant WP:UNDUE.

Summary: to prevent edit warring, I shall give Kilz a chance to consider this before I re-add the tags. Further, I note that as retaliation, he has inserted many similar tags. Widefox 15:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Debian-legal list has admins, they can remove any incorrect posts, and the rest of the people on that list can correct errors. The list is comprised of people who have identified themselves, and are legal professionals who deal with licenses and the DFSG daily. Your citing of WP:A to prove your point falls on its face. No place on that page dose it say archives of a mail list that deal with the subject can not be used.
2. I disagree, it is a creditable source.
3. It is now not hypothetical that the license fails the DFSG. I found the reference. The question isnt if Debian is stopping distribution. But if the license would even allow it.
4. The code could be added by any maintainer and dose not need to be added by the author of the work.
5. This post clarifies the questions raised in replies Widefox links to. Saying that even if they dont use the binaries supplied. The fact that they are restricted at all fails the DFSG.
6. See answer to #5. Even if they made their own binaries it still fails the DFSG.
7. Thanks for proving what I said above. everyone is everyone.
8 It is not undue, since the package is for "Debian" installs. Therefore the views of Debian users who chose a distro that uses free as in freedom software is important. A few sentences is not overdoing one point of view. Neither is asking the people involved in the DFSG about a license WP:OR.
9. See answer to 8.
10. see anser to 8
Conclusion. I think user Widefox should reconsider his opinions to including these facts and should get opinions from other editors before either replacing the tags or removing the facts. Kilz 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The burden is on you as editor to justify your claim. This whole section still has multiple failings (I've marked) and only gets worse. Please provide refs or remove claim, breaching WP:OR, especially undue emphasis WP:NPOV. In summary - Debian has a well known Firefox issue (Iceweasel), but no known Swiftfox issue (no Iceswift). Kilz - that is the confusion. Widefox 10:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Last night I tried to rewrite that section to try and end this edit conflict. This morning I have taken out the hard to prove section at the end, until I can find a citation for it. But the beginning part of the article is nothing but facts supported by the license itself and the Swiftfox site. But I believe that you have pointed out problems that do not exist. IMHO as long as the license says something, its a fact and can be included. That the Swiftfox site says something , or has information on it is also possible to be included. Kilz 11:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This morning I have edited is a little further. But a question come to mind.
  • This part of the license[improper synthesis?] - How can a statement pointing to a section of the Swiftfox license be improper synthesis? Kilz 12:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: restricting articles to latest version number

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • There is no automatic and exclusive restriction banning previous version numbers in articles. Sure, more up-to-date info is preferable. Swiftfox is about the browser, not just the latest release Swiftfox 2.0.0.3. Look at Firefox - it is not exclusively about Firefox 2.0 (actually Firefox 2.0.0.3), and has a reference for version 1.5 Firefox#_note-44, and a history article going back further. Why should Swiftfox be any different? In fact, Firefox 1.5.0.x is still being produced. Widefox 12:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Widefox is ignoring the consensus above. Swiftfox and Firefox use the same code, the current version is 2.0. There has been an end of life date of April 24, 2007 for the 1.5 version by which all users are strongly urged upgrade to the 2.0 version. Wikipedia should have the most up to date information. We should be replacing information that is 2 years old on a version with an end of life date right around the corner. No content is being removed right now, but labeled so that it can be replaced. User Widefox is urged to follow the consensus above of 4 other editors. Kilz 13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope we can reach consensus here. Kilz - we are in agreement that 1.5 is a current release, although end-of-line. Widefox 13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No , sorry we cant even agree on that. 1.5 is not the current version, that it was released some time in the past is not an issue. 2.0 is the current released version. That is an indisputable fact supported by the numbering system. It follows that version 1.5 is in fact an older version compared to 2.0. Not only that but some of the information on the article is not about version 1.5, but 1.0 and beta versions of 1.5. This information (about versions 1.0, 1.5 beta, and 1.5) needs to be replaced with up to date information on the current released version 2.0. Wikipedia should have the most up to date information because it is not in print and can be updated. Relying on old, out of date information, especially for benchmarks is a bad idea because it can lead to confusion by the reader. Again I will also point out that no information is being removed, but being labeled so that it can be updated as soon as possible. Honestly, I do not see the point of hiding the fact that information is out of date and needs to be updated. By doing so it only increeses the time it will take for said information to be updated. Kilz 14:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
update - we do agree that Swiftfox 1.5 is now not available [16]. FF 1.5 is still being produced, and supported [17] . Widefox 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Having followed the stuff in this article a bit, I must say that in my opinion the edits by Widefox are a tad too aggressive. The edits by Kilz usually do have merit, please don't act like they don't at all. He has a opposing POV to yours, and that POV should be reflected in the article too. --SLi 13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/w/i/Talk%7ESwiftfox_1ac3.html"