User talk:Kilz/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] This is an Archive

Unfortunatly because the orignal was growing to long I have descided to Archive my talk page. The reason it has grown so long is because of Swiftfox. I have tried to get the Swiftfox discussions on the Swiftfox talk page. But user Widefox insists on discussing it on my talk page.

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Kilz! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Swiftfox

I don't understand why you removed vital parts of this article - free download, optimisation, and a clear location to download the software. I understand your desire to not have this as advertising, although I have justified the current status. I did not revert the article because you had added many good new parts, so I merged the information back in. If you disagree, please see my discussion I have started on the Swiftfox talk page. Widefox 15:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your edits to Swiftfox. If you need some style guides, please checkout {{cite web}}, and see my edit comments for details of my decisions. Your edits did not justify the word "quality" criticism which the [citation needed] was there for, so you should not remove the [citation needed]. I suggest moving these controversial edits to the existing discussion page that you've added to, in order to prevent any edit conflicts from happening. Widefox 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

please see the talk page. Please consider your edits and let's find consensus on the talk page. Maybe I just do not understand what you are trying to add? Be aware though, that it would be helpful if you followed the guidelines more, and I can only revert the page 1 more time before I shall be forced to escalate this, so I would much rather that we come to agreement there. Widefox 19:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that you are a new user. According to the guidelines, taking a break might be useful before editing Swiftfox any more for today, please could you checkout Wikipedia:Resolving disputes Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:Etiquette. I understand you are very keen on editing this article, but I don't know if you've seen those couple of pages yet, as you are new here. Widefox 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen your changes to Swiftfox and they are POV and unacceptable - please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view above. You have also made markup errors so that the last reference is not properly shown. In order that to prevent editing conflict, I shall give you a chance to fix the POV and markup errors without me editing. Widefox 20:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have waited for your changes. You have forced me to revert due to the listed problems with the article. I will add in your references now, so that they are not lost. This will take me a minute, so I write you this here so you do not edit in between. Widefox 22:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non free software license

Please see comments in edit summary, plus header on page. I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Non free software license, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Non free software license. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Widefox 22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I started that page today, noticing that there is none to cover the "iffy" licenses that are still open source but not free as in freedom. Sadly I have been in a battle with you on Swiftfox, dealing with my sick wife, and other things that keep me off the web for periods of time. I fully intend to improve and add to that page, but I do not work like greased lightning. You haven't given me any time at all. The page isn't 12 hours old and your already suggesting deleting it. What is your problem? Do you normally attack new people? Do you normally try to boss around everyone? Kilz 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

your contributions on Swiftfox just needed some taming, as were. Nothing wrong with that in the end. Tip - when you create a page - it comes up with a page that says "try searching for this term before you create". Always do that, however dumb it sounds! Your page already exists.
OK, The deletion notice lists that if you look into that deletion box (I made sure that you could follow the links).
You see, it's nice to edit, but there's process as well that only after a while you will know why that's important! but seriously, you're probably feeling annoyed that an articles will be deleted with the effort put in to create it (I guess your first one), but believe me, to make sure I'm deleting propertly, researching the correct page, making links for you, and fixing up the correct page, I bet it took more of my night (middle of the night here). Now I'm off to sleep before the sun comes up. Hope your wife just has a cold like me, regards Widefox 03:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfotunatly no, she is has cancer. God willing she will beat it, and the outlook is good. But still she needs a lot of help as the chemo takes a lot out of her. I did search for non free, but there is no page with that title. It offerd to let me make it on the search results. I now see that the proprietary page has the non-free info, so Ill let it get deleted. Maybe my nervs are a little frazzled with everything going on, please forget the last comments. Kilz 04:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

very sorry to hear that. Best wishes. Bit shocked. Just say if you need more tips, good luck, Widefox 05:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I try to keep myslef busy to try and stop thinking about it. Sometimes I tend to focus in on one thing because of that. Kilz 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK you new round here too, (between you and me, I've only been here a couple months). Widefox 19:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow you have done a lot for only a few months. I liked the idea of a open source of knowlage anyone can add to. I started using Linux 8 months ago and find the longer I use it the more I like free (as in freedom) things. Sooner or later I have to edit the user page.

Well, I think you're doing pretty good yourself - 8 months, and already building 64bit debs! Don't be misled by the edit count. I got into a very big edit job of hundreds of articles in one go, so that doubled my edits in a day. Had to complete as fast as possible, due to dead links to a major article. Hand hurt! It got the point where I was trying to automate the textbox editing with external editors (Firefox extension ViewSourceWith - can use your favourite editor), but nothing seemed fast enough! funny now. I've got a similar feeling about wikipedia as I got for Linux when I first saw it. You know there's possible licence issues too - it's not our content, and there's something about commercial derivative works, but I haven't checked fully yet. For me, there's something special and new about the power of knowledge being for the first time ever in the hands of the community (although the computer is a barrier). My user page is a mess - I'm half way through a reformat tonight. You got flash in your amd64 FF? I know I shouldn't ask you that(!) but YouTube and ubiquity of flash content... Widefox 23:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I use gnash, it isn't perfect and cant run youtube video. But part of what I do for other 64bit Ubuntu users is make the 32bit Firefox web browser debs and plugin install scripts. You need the 32bit browser for most plugins. If users want to install the proprietary plugins, that's their choice. Choice is a freedom to, as long as they are informed. I'm not as radical as some. I will use a piece or 2 of non-free if no free option is available. But when I find a free version I replace it. Java is an example of this.
I was one of the people that learned how to install 32bit applications into 64bit Ubuntu. That's what made me interested in Swiftfox in the first place. I wanted all the firfefox variants available on the howto. So I made a 32bit deb for 64bit Ubuntu and distributed it, since it was under the MPL at the time. My mistake was asking Jason if he wanted any files(for credit) included. He must be new to Linux because I don't think he gets it that packaging and application development is separate in a lot of applications.
I have Firefox, Iceweasel, and Flock available at present. I really like Iceweasel, it seems a lot faster than Firefox. Plus its as free as possible. So its possible to create a really custom install without having to check licenses. Add extensions, change home page, add search engines, etc.
Better a messy page than none :) I really have to make one. But so far there just hasn't been time. I would also like to start an article on wikipedia. But all the subjects I have thought of already have one. Looks like I will be helping to make existing ones better.

IceWeasel does sound like the future. 100% debs are just so much easier to handle too. I checked out the IceWeasel article and and software, and I've fixed up a lot of things (spend an hour researching, plus 1 rewriting article). There's still plenty to do (hint) but it's in the right direction now....I know it currently looks bad with all the banners, but it needs some strong criticism now, so that it goes in the right direction. You go any feeling for how much faster it feels, or any refs for "first looks" at it? Widefox 15:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a few things to the IceWeasel page, including a download section :) to make it and Swiftfox look more alike. Kilz 19:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how is the purple warning box added to the page. Like the one on Iceweasel? Kilz 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you, but don't make me regret telling you! {{advert}} and {{unreferenced|section}} . Use of this kind of thing is slightly more advanced. Normally worth getting a few edits, and a few articles, maybe vote on a deletion or something to balance your experience (of course, feel free to ignore my tips!) Widefox 03:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think I will ignore the tips. But its always nice to have information avilable that you think may come in handy. Kilz 03:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I need a little article with all this stuff handy.

Unfortunately, I had to remove the redundant benchmark data - we've already said it isn't authoritative, so there's no point in quoting the absolute speedup if we have the % already there, especially without even more details of other timings and tests. IceWeasel (not yet in Debian apt) and especially IceDove (is already in Debian unstable apt!) need much more work, where you might want to sink your teeth into? just a tip so ... Widefox 15:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we should remove all the other benchmark data. The .12 should be there instead because 1.7% is relitive, .12 of a second is the actual difference. On the same os, the same 32bit platform. But maybe we should remove it all, as Im going to do now. If it isnt authoritative it shouldnt be there. Kilz 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] issues raised

Talk:Swiftfox has the details. Please read and comment before making more edits to the article. Widefox 04:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] waiting for reply

I do not understand your editing this article without waiting for my reply. Due to my substantial reply, while editing, you have changed the article again. Considering I said that I wouldn't talk about this until you have apologised, you seem to be over eager with the insistence on your timetable. For further discussion, I suggest that talk page. Widefox 04:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I waited over 12 hours for your reply. and hours from my warning. The edits were donwe because I will not wait forever. Its done now. I will not go backwards. Kilz 04:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither of use dictate anything here! I have commented on every single issue, and provided more facts. At this point, I agree with you only in that more benchmark info would be useful. Apart from that, I am waiting for you to provide a single new fact, and at this point consider that you are going against WP:ECOI Widefox 03:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no conflict of intrest. That is an excuse you are using to try and force me to go away. My sole intrest is the truth. You are not assumeing good faith. Going over the points in conflict of intrest. 1. I recieve no money or conciderations for my edits in any way shape or form. 2. I do not expect to get any money or other conciderations in the future from my edits. 3. I am not an emplyeee or member of a conflicting group. That I have made a binary .deb file for the operating system I use for other firefox forks is not a conflict. I have no links or edits, or credit in the code. I simply use the applications as they are released in binary form from the projects to help other Ubuntu users. I recieve no money or other conciderations for doing that. Neither was I asked to do it, nor am I a member of the Ubuntu development teams. I am simply a user helping other users in the spirit of Ubuntu. It is an african word that translated as "Humanity to others". 4. I have no friends or family that work on any Firefox related projects. Or any other Browser for that matter. 5. Limited contact on a public forum months ago does not lead to conflict of intrest. As you also have limited contact on the same forum.Kilz 13:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refusal to participate in consensus building

(copy from the Swiftfox talk page) I have summarised the important points from the bulk of the text, please read the appropriate parts. I restate, please continue to add facts and arguments to reach consensus. Your reply just now does not participate in the consensus building, and your refusal to lay down some facts there and previously means that I wait for your answer. As indicated previously, I will now take this issue to a 3rd party, as you are refusing to participate in consensus building. Widefox 14:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Widefox 14:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, please use the preview option - you are breaking the markup of the page with some of these repeated quick edits. Just a tip! Widefox 14:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Use of sockpupet 67.175.233.209

It appears to me that you have tried to circumvent this discussion here, by using a sockpuppet account WP:SOCK, and then regretting it, and trying to cover fact by reverting. This is the only explanation, as you know that you must reach consensus here before making such a drastic edit. Widefox 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Widefox 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

That is a bold face lie and Im am going to do whatever is nessasary to make sure you get in trouble for posting liesKilz 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The evidence dose not support the accusation. I somehow got logged out. When I went to make an edit, it did not realize I was logged out. when I noticed I was logged out I imediatly made a small eddit, adding a space, to make the comment the last edit was mine.
Secondly I am relitivly new to Wikipedia, I didnt think someone would have the gall to accuse me of this when I made an eddit to say it was me.
Third I have a static IP. Any moderator would instantly see it was me since Im sure IP's are kept with edits even if we cant see them. It would server no purpose. Kilz 22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd opinion - no advert

The third opinion says that it is not an advert. Please check what that editor has said, and consider this before continuing to edit. Widefox 23:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He said the paig I had edited was not an advert, look at the edit he links toKilz 23:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect, check the link. Widefox 00:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You better look again, he said the page as edited, or as of the edit. The edit removed the freeware wording you added. Kilz 00:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You're ignoring the plural. If you don't accept the fact, don't! The record is clear for readers. Widefox 01:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as you point out plural, so will I. The opinion is of one person. More telling is you asked for an opinion on my aleged conflict of intrest. To which no opinion was given Kilz 04:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 revert rule

I am giving you notice that you are not allowed to revert the article Swiftfox for the next 24hours due to reaching the 3Revert rule limit. Please see WP:AN/3RR. If you do revert one more time, you will be in violation, and I shall ask you account to be closed for 24hours, according to the rules.

  • In addition, your classification of the article as advert goes against the 3rd opinion, as listed above. I therefore will remove the banner, which you have failed to justify with any fact or verifiable evidence, despite several pages of text.

Please desist from edit warring. Widefox 00:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You started it. You had no right to revert the "freeware" edit. You replaced non-free with "freeware" without concensoius, with an ongoing discussion on it.Kilz 00:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The comment you left on my userpage does not add up - the article is already locked. You are too late. Please look at the 3rd opinion. Also, I consider that you have broken the 3RR rule, but given as this is a first offence, I think they will not block you. Widefox 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you havent changed one bit. Still fighting to the end. There is a notability tag on the page now. It may get deleted as we are the only ones who seem interested in it. If we continue this thats whats going to happen. I wanted this to be over long ago and you have pushed it and pushed it.Looking back, you started the whole fight by replacing non-free with freeware on the page while it was under discussion. You did not have concensious.
Well since you accused me of using a sockpupet when it wasnt true, you now have a fight to the end if you want one. The other option is to end it now. The ball is in your corner.Kilz 02:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Swiftfox

I hope you don't mind, but I have removed your Swiftfox Freetype2 claim. I have meticulously detailed the reasons why this claim is factually incorrect and also unsubstantiated. Wikipedia is no place for original research WP:NOR. Please try to refrain from inserting more original research, and additionally, please use the talk page before you make more controversial edits, as per guidelines for creating consensus. Widefox 17:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I will replace it, its not orignal research. As long as you make edits, expect me to edit.Kilz 20:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Please use the talk page first, as per guideline. I have provided evidence that they both have FT2 disabled. Have you checked? You realise that all other firefox editors here can check their browser as per the instructions, and see for themselves that what you claim is wrong. Removal or changing this without evidence or talking on the talk page first will be seen as going against the guidelines, and might result in an edit war. Please avoid that by coming to consensus first. Widefox 20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Fine, its not in 2.0. It should be removed. But its not orignal research if it is found on a web site. The mozilla build options clearly show freetype2 is a default of the gtk option.Kilz 20:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
(after merge) You were assuming that because FT2 is a default in GTK therefore it must be enabled in FF. That is, yes original research. Worse than that, it is incorrect. But, all wikipedia cares about is the lack of verifiable evidence. This is why I kept asking you for references to say SF is different from FF. You did not provide one, so I had to research this claim myself, which isn't how things should work. You can't keep inserting your beliefs without evidence and expect others to refute them. You must provide evidence beforehand, as the burden of proof is on you. Widefox 21:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I provided a link to the mozilla build optimazation page. It says that freetype2 is a default of the GTK option that is wenabled. You are the one that did orignal research. The new 2.0 build options are not on any web page yet. I quote "so I had to research this claim myself,". Kilz 21:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Do not post one more thing about Swiftfox on my talk page. If you have some point to make about swiftfox. Do it on the Swiftfox talk page.Kilz 21:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that you have removed your previous comment. I have reinserted it, as my reply was to that, and I was forced to reinsert it due to the merge when posting. My comment does not make sense without it, and I don't understand why you try to cover it up. I don't think anyone is really interested. I have taken the liberty of striking it through, as you seem to have changed your mind, which seems like a compromise. Widefox 21:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it and made another comment before you did. You knew it, and replaced the comment I had removed. This isnt a cover up. This is you playing games on my talk page. If you have some problem or concern regarding Swiftfox, add it to the bottom of the Swiftfox talk page.Kilz 21:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try to tell me what I did. You are also not assuming good faith. If you look at the timings, you'll see my (large) reply was to the deleted text, which I only saw you deleted when I posted, and it told me to merge. Hopefully I merged correctly, including reinserting this lost text.
I have checked the guidelines, and you are violating WP:TPG specifically "Behavior that is unacceptable" "Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Strike-through looks like this and ends up like this."
Also, you have selectively deleted other parts of your talk page, including when you were banned. This violates WP:TPG "Archive — don't delete:" Widefox 22:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oct 28, 2006

Also, you have selectively deleted other parts of your talk page, including when you were banned. This violates WP:TPG "Archive — don't delete:" Widefox 22:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok here you go, it isnt selective. Im just sick of you using my talk page as a Swiftfox talk page. Its mine, not part of an article. Its topic is me and what I want it to be. Dont like it? I really dont care. Kilz 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well actually it was selective. [1] from line 126 == issues raised == to == Swiftfox == Widefox 22:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
FYI technically, everything you do on wikipedia belongs to them, including your user and talk pages - if you leave, you may ask them to delete it but they do not have to, but that's just the fine legal points. The main point is that this page is for you to talk with others. Being as you mainly only edit Swiftfox, where I edit, it would be unreasonable to say that you do not wish me to talk here. Widefox 22:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
What part of I do not want to discuss Swiftfox here do you not understand? Swiftfox has its own talk page. While Wikipedia may claim rights to the pages I create. I do not think you represent Wikipedia.Kilz 23:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia, I own everything I place on Wikipedia. I grant it a license to use it. But I own it.Kilz 23:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I see. Seems you are confusing copyright with copy ownership. You own the copyright, wikipedia has a licence for this copy. You do not own this copy, no. If you leave, you can ask to have your contributions removed, but they do not have to do it, as they own it. Wikipedia is made of contributors like you and me. Widefox 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have looked though the long discussion on Swiftfox and cannot see any new or open points. Widefox 12:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at your replies today, and see no moving forward with them. Widefox 02:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the edit you have done on Swiftfox. You have made a controversial edit by inserting a tag without making an attempt to reach consensus, nor waiting for any comments from the RfC, or waiting for the cabal to review the case. This text is justified in the talk page, and as such you have no justification, similarly to the last tag you inserted.

You force me to repeat myself, ....the 2 pertinent points needed by the article are: ":::reason - Sets the context for startup speed problem, and it is also 1/2 of the benchmark data. This is a repeat of a topic above I answered above, and concluded. I see you just simply refuse to accept, but you refuse to attempt to reach consensus, or wait either for RfC or until the cabal looks at this case. I have removed your unjustified tag until this further action. Please talk through your controversial edits here beforehand." Widefox 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You are incorect, I have attempted to reach consensus on the Firefox benchmarks over and over. The Swiftfox page reflects this. I have talked and discussed this. I will not discuss this here. Please use the Relevance tag sub section of the Using Firefox benchmarks section to discuss this. My talk page is not for discussing Swiftfox.Kilz 00:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You have reached consensus on a couple of points, but this is not one of them. In fact, I have today fully justified this section. Did you not see these new additions? You have additionally not answered my repeated question about the FF licence being less relevant, so you must do so to participate in any discussion. I conclude that you are just circumventing the discussion. The tag itself isn't too much of a big deal, but I just wish you to know that it is unjustified, given your lack acknowledging the new justification in the article. Without all that context and justification, I would have no problem with the tag at all. Widefox 01:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So that you see this before making more edits, I include it here:

  • "pls see the new additions to article - fully justifying relevance with references. I understand that you disputed the relevance b4, but I consider the FF license less worthy, but wait, not tag it." Widefox 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I will not get into an edit war with you (again). Please leave the tag there or remove it as you wish, but I shall raise this unreasonable behaviour with the cabal. Widefox 14:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Dispute

{{POV}} 23:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC) WP:NPOV (Debian/Ubuntu) in particular WP:NPOV#Undue weight (Licence, in particular "non-free") . Personal involvement of User:Kilz with the licence change (Kilz's words[2]), licence infringement [3] (author's words) leading to severe relationship with Swiftfox author resulting in Swiftfox forum ban (warning - expletives) [4] (See "I banned Kilz long ago" and "I am probably going to be discontinuing the debs." due to Kilz), Mozilla forum problem ("take this somewhere more appropriate") [5], (personal attack on author)[6] [7], [8] ("I have a sinking feeing this delay is so he can sabatoge the source code."), [9], [10] (See "who is he that we should trust him?" Kilz), where Kilz has blanked an old comment since being exposed here [11]

  • use of a dispute tag without reason WP:TD, continued failure to provide evidence WP:VAND, refusal to accept 3rd opinion (tag was shown by me in good faith WP:AGF)
  • no facts WP:NOR or possibility to reach consensus on any above issue WP:CON
    • dismissal of 3rd opinion
    • against Centrx and my agreed opinions about "non-free"
    • dismissal of my opinion
    • dismissal of most Swiftfox references (purely technical, or links to site)
    • changing of licensing term (circumvented consensus building) leading to an edit war and the article locked.
    • repeatedly requiring proof that "3" is "higher" than "2" (multiple requests above)
  • personal attacks, accusations, for me and Swiftfox author WP:NPA
  • selective blanking and inverting conversation on User talk:Kilz [12]
  • WP:VAND, WP:NPOV (see bold above for instances) Widefox 01:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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

This is in fact more appropriate here than on the Swiftfox talk page. This is an shorten updated version, for additional info. This editor has caused the licence change, and comes here with an NPOV problem resulting from that. I have removed most of the NPOV problem, but his filling up of the Swiftfox talk page means that nothing more is possible. Action is needed to clear up this situation. Widefox 15:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

His reply and discussion of this is here Talk:Swiftfox#Reply to Summary of Dispute

[edit] November 2, 2006

[edit] Swiftfox controversial edits

Please use the talk page before reinserting this controversy, as fully justified on the talk page. I will not get into a third edit war with you. I left your banner there to avert the second one, even though you have not justified it. You cannot threaten me with vandalism for just editing the article, especially for removing unreferenced controversies. I have done my best to talk to reach consensus with you on these matters, but you cannot stop me from editing to remove this NPOV problem. Widefox 22:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you to discuss Swiftfox on the Swiftfox page. If you continue this I will seek to have you blocked from my talk page. Kilz 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is the correct place to talk with you when time is of the essence (because you get the alert), and in fact in general. Also, I talk with you to prevent an edit war, which I also believe is the best thing to do. Widefox 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Swiftfox has its OWN talk page. Do not Discuss Swiftfox or its editing on this page.Kilz 23:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You are continuing with an edit war with this edit [13]. This is the third time recently 1. you were banned 2. I yielded 3. I yield now, but I want this noted that you refuse to edit in a civil way and reach consensus before making these controversial edits, causing edit warring. I will not get involved in these edit wars, but your refusal to abide by the guidelines I note here for review. Widefox 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was banned, because you filed a sockpupet case against me for a not loged in edit. I think whoever banned me had no idea that I had a static IP. Kilz 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Kilz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Might it help if Kilz slightly modified the link to his archive page, to show it's an archive above [14] Widefox 23:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait one cotton picking second. You (Widefox) started by blanking out a section still under discussion. I am just improving on the orignal. This is not a revert war. You (Widefox) seem to think you can edit away without talking to me or waiting untill the discussion is done. But on the other hand want me to discuss in detail every edit to the page. This is a double standerd that I will not follow. Either you wait untill we agree before editing, or I edit without discussing things with you. Kilz 23:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User Wizardry Dragon, I dont know what you are doing on my talk page. But you have said I have removed something when the page is archived. You are now helping Widefox in taking over my talk page for the purpose of using it as a Swiftfox page when it has its own.Kilz 23:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What part? Again I point you to the pages archive. The reason I archived it is user Widefox insists on using my talk page as a Swiftfox talk page when the article has its own. Kilz 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing Swiftfox author

(This section was copied onto the Swiftfox talk page where it belongs, please place all discussions about the Swiftfox article on the Swiftfox talk page. Kilz 12:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ) (Copied from my talk page to the articles page Kilz 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ) (moved back here, where I originally put it Widefox 15:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

I do not understand your edit [15]. You have removed the authors name. I have replaced this (see my edit summary), to keep this in the same style of the other firefox build articles. Please do not remove information without giving a reason, and also changing from the style of equivalent articles. Widefox 12:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it read better. I also dont check other articles to make sure they all match. But I have checked and you are correct they all are written this way. But I dont think I am held in my edits to check other pages of Wikipedia on how they are writtenKilz 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I am glad we can agree on this. I do recommend looking and editing other articles, so that you may get more perspective on the style issues, especially emphasis of issues. Widefox 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism of this page

I cannot find some of my remarks. You have blanked with this edit [16] and also moved discussion somewhere else (I haven't found my comment yet). You have already been warned not to do this. Widefox 13:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you take a look in the archive. As #5 accusation says "archiving current edit wars away" I assume you know where to find the comment you are referenceing. Its in the archive.Kilz 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reported this, it has been done multiple times - before and after multiple warnings:

  • 1. selective blanking [17] (replaced with opposite)
  • Widefox gave warning [18]
Exists on my Archive page.
  • 2. selective blanking (to show contempt) [19]
Exists on my Archive page. I was in process of archiving everything because user Widefox insists on using my page as a Swiftfox page.
  • 3. selective blanking [20]
Exists on my Archive page. I was in process of archiving everything because user Widefox insists on using my page as a Swiftfox page.
  • 4. archiving (without proper link)
As long as the page is linked I know of no rule that says what form the link should be.
  • Wizardry Dragon gave warning [21]
Yes he gave a warning, IMHO because he assumed good faith by you in your accusations. But each and every thing you calim is missing from my talk, is on my archive page, and has been there since the 28th of October. You pointed out the link to the page, so you knew it existed on November 2nd. Then a day later on Nov. 3rd you placed this section accusing me of removing things you could have easily checked to see have been on the Archive since the 28th of October. Kilz 04:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 5. (8 minutes later) archiving current edit wars away [22]
On November 2, 2006, I archived the Oct 28, 2006 Section. No new comments had been made in 2 days. I know of no rule that says you cant Archive things than have been inactive 2 days.Kilz 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 6. moving discussion elsewhere [23] (apparently not completed removal)
On the contrary, this is where you removed my comment. The comment signed by me at 12:32 was never made on my talk page. You removed it from the Swiftfox talk page where it was made. This section still exists, but you pasted my comment made on the Swiftfox talk page at 12:32 here. There is no 12:32 edit by me here, in fact you link to the edit on the Swiftfox talk page. Kilz 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

At this point I will also collate the personal attacks you have made on me and the Swiftfox author, so they may all be considered in context. Widefox 15:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There has been no selective blanking. That you cant find your comment in pages and pages of comments to me is not suprising. I suggest you look for them and stop making false accusations. Kilz 17:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

WP:NPA violations:

  • "I think I know how unethical he is, and know he will lie to win."[24] (about Swiftfox author)
I have causght him in a lie or two. I honestly believe he will lie.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "That they are a hypocrate."[25]
I did not say who a hypocrate was, but that turning around a question is a way of showing who a hypocrate is.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Sorry but that knife in my back only showed me one thing. What kind of person you are."[26]
Said after you filed a false sockpupet charge against me. Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "That is a bold face lie and Im am going to do whatever is nessasary to make sure you get in trouble for posting lies"[27]
You posted lies in a false charge of me being a sockpupet for a not loged in edit.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "I guess you havent changed one bit. Still fighting to the end. " and "Looking back, you started the whole fight..."[28]
You have a pattern of making edits that have no concensious. Then when I point it out you use comments against me. Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "... you now have a fight to the end if you want one. The other option is to end it now."[29]
If you want to continue to fight I am more than willing to see it through to the end. It takes 2 to argue, you are as involved in this as I am, and have instead of words done things in against consensus. This was in response to the edit war you started by editing something under discussion without consensus.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Jason has tried to stop me from telling people Swiftfox is non-free."[30]
So whats wrong with telling someone the truth?Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated uncivil behaviour (despite repeated requests to decease):

  • "Well looks like you have made a lot of trouble for me."[31]
By filing a false sockpupet charge against me for a not loged in edit, I claimed with a minor edit within minutes.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Thank you for that, it is priceless, and shows a pattern." [32]

Yes it shows a pattern of your behaviour. First you file a false sockpupet charge against me. Then use that charge to show I have done something wrong on another charge. You then go back to the Sockpupet page and claim I have blanked a page when you admitted to knowing it was archived on another page. So IMHO you have a habbit of taking false charges and using them to further your agenda. I no longer assume good faith from you for that reason.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • "Do not post one more thing about Swiftfox on my talk page."[33]
Swiftfox has its own talk page. I have asked nicely more than once not to discuss Swiftfox on my talk page. But to use the Swiftfox talk page. For some reason you refuse to do this.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Are you attempting to get some negitive comment out of me by doing something you know I do not want done to my talk page?"[34]
Well you continue to discuss something here afer repeatly asked not to. Swiftfox has its own talk page. Talk there about it. After asking , and asking you not to, and your continued use of this page for Swiftfox leads me to assume bad faith.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "What part of I do not want to discuss Swiftfox here do you not understand?[35]
Thanks for showing I have asked over and over not to discuss Swiftfox here.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "My talk page is not for discussing Swiftfox." [36]
Thanks for showing I have asked over and over not to discuss Swiftfox here.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "User Wizardry Dragon, I dont know what you are doing on my talk page. "[37]
I didnt know, so whats wrong with saying so? He has still not answerd what he is doing.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • vindictive behaviour "It you intend to use Firefox benchmarks for Swiftfox, expect the free software license to be replaced."[38]
If he insisted on inserting information without consensious, I was going to replace other information.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • unfounded accusations of positive bias "Use of Swiftfox site as a reference, Positive bias problem"
The Swiftfox site has a pro Swiftfox Bias, WP:RS(Company and organization websites) I feel we are relying on the Swiftfox site to much.Kilz 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 3 edit wars (last 2 I let go)
After Widefox made edits without consensious on topices still under discussion.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 2 merge errors of mine - accusations of vandalism, and left unresolved.
Merge errors where a comment of mine was removed and not replaced. If it was merge, wouldnt the comment just have been moved? Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • dismissal of 3rd party opinion
I asked questions on the third opinion, strangly one of my questions was removed in a "merge" and not replaced on the page. Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • dismissal of Centrx opinion
I just stated my opinion was not the same.Kilz 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Widefox 15:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have answerd those here. Kilz 23:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)