| Revision as of 03:48, 12 June 2014 editJ05HYYY (talk | contribs)149 editsm →Google Cookies: renamed title← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:27, 12 June 2014 edit undoWalter Görlitz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers294,571 edits →Safe Browsing API: That would be finrNext edit → | ||
| Line 1,340: | Line 1,340: | ||
| :::I think I probably will take this to DRN, as you are repeatedly removing my edits without sufficient justification as to why. I tried to talk to you to resolve any issues in the edit, and you didn't manage to come up with any valid reasons as to why an edit along the proposed lines shouldn't be allowed, even when I removed any conflicting pieces. Besides this, you have attempted to find faults within the sources, which weren't there and keep on reciting templates which do not apply to the text, as justification. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Walter and Lisa was one in the same person. As Walter seems to agree with whatever Lisa is saying, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary and both remove the edits, with different accounts to avoid being banned with the removal rule. Personally I can only hope DRN makes the right decision to allow the text and to ban the both of you, for A) colluding and B) destroying the neutrality of Misplaced Pages through what appears to be, blatant censorship. 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | :::I think I probably will take this to DRN, as you are repeatedly removing my edits without sufficient justification as to why. I tried to talk to you to resolve any issues in the edit, and you didn't manage to come up with any valid reasons as to why an edit along the proposed lines shouldn't be allowed, even when I removed any conflicting pieces. Besides this, you have attempted to find faults within the sources, which weren't there and keep on reciting templates which do not apply to the text, as justification. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Walter and Lisa was one in the same person. As Walter seems to agree with whatever Lisa is saying, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary and both remove the edits, with different accounts to avoid being banned with the removal rule. Personally I can only hope DRN makes the right decision to allow the text and to ban the both of you, for A) colluding and B) destroying the neutrality of Misplaced Pages through what appears to be, blatant censorship. 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :::: That would be great. It's not censorship, but you'll be told that. ] (]) 04:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:27, 12 June 2014
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firefox article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Firefox is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 28, 2004. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As of 08/09/13, the Firefox article requires the following to be completed:
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Reader feedback: I am tyrying to choose what...
108.50.168.140 posted this comment on 1 October 2013 (view all feedback).
I am tyrying to choose what web browser I wish to use on my new HP desktop, I would like to see in a simple chart what browsers offer what and how efficient each one is. A SIMPLE chart that we may use to compare. At the moment I like both Firefox and Chrome. I would like to make a choic. Thank you
If you click on the Web browser pointer in the introduction, then scroll down to its See also section, and there follow the link to List of web browsers in which you also scroll down to its See also section, you'll find yet another link : Comparison of web browsers where is to be found what you are seeking. — Jerome Potts (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Backup
Here is a backup table transclusion, just in case the Template Discussion does indeed end in Delete. By the way, I do not think it needs to be a collapsible NavBar. If you look around at other "Version history" or "Release history" tables on software Articles, you will find that most of them aren't. They also usually don't have big green top cells with the phrase "Release history"; instead, they usually fall under "Version history" or "Release history" as a separate Section heading in the respective Article.
| Version | Release date | Gecko version |
Release notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 2002-09-23 | 1.2 |
|
| 0.2 | 2002-10-01 |
| |
| 0.3 | 2002-10-14 |
| |
| 0.4 | 2002-10-19 | 1.3 |
|
| 0.5 | 2002-12-07 |
| |
| 0.6 | 2003-05-17 | 1.5 |
|
| 0.7 | 2003-10-15 |
| |
| 0.8 | 2004-02-09 | 1.6 |
|
| 0.9 | 2004-05-15 | 1.7 |
|
| 1.0 | 2004-11-09 |
| |
| 1.0.8 | 2006-04-13 |
| |
| 1.5 | 2005-11-29 | 1.8 |
|
| 1.5.0.12 | 2007-05-30 |
| |
| 2.0 | 2006-10-24 | 1.8.1 |
|
| 2.0.0.20 | 2008-12-18 |
| |
| 3.0 | 2008-06-17 | 1.9 |
|
| 3.0.19 | 2010-03-30 |
| |
| 3.5 | 2009-06-30 | 1.9.1 |
|
| 3.5.19 | 2011-04-28 |
| |
| 3.6 | 2010-01-21 | 1.9.2 |
|
| 3.6.28 | 2012-03-13 |
| |
| 4.0 | 2011-03-22 | 2.0 |
|
| 4.0.1 | 2011-04-28 |
| |
| 5.0 | 2011-06-21 | 5.0 |
|
| 5.0.1 | 2011-07-11 |
| |
| 6.0 | 2011-08-16 | 6.0 |
|
| 6.0.2 | 2011-09-06 |
| |
| 7.0 | 2011-09-27 | 7.0 |
|
| 7.0.1 | 2011-09-29 |
| |
| 8.0 | 2011-11-08 | 8.0 |
|
| 8.0.1 | 2011-11-21 |
| |
| 9.0 | 2011-12-20 | 9.0 |
|
| 9.0.1 | 2011-12-21 |
| |
| 10.0 | 2012-01-31 | 10.0 |
|
| 10.0.1 | 2012-02-10 |
| |
| 10.0.2 | 2012-02-16 |
| |
| 10.0.3esr | 2012-03-13 |
| |
| 10.0.4esr | 2012-04-24 |
| |
| 10.0.5esr | 2012-06-05 |
| |
| 10.0.6esr | 2012-07-17 |
| |
| 10.0.7esr | 2012-08-28 |
| |
| 10.0.8esr | 2012-10-09 |
| |
| 10.0.9esr | 2012-10-12 |
| |
| 10.0.10esr | 2012-10-26 |
| |
| 10.0.11esr | 2012-11-20 |
| |
| 10.0.12esr | 2013-01-08 |
| |
| 11.0 | 2012-03-13 | 11.0 |
|
| 12.0 | 2012-04-24 | 12.0 |
|
| 13.0 | 2012-06-05 | 13.0 |
|
| 13.0.1 | 2012-06-15 |
| |
| 14.0 | 2012-06-26 | 14.0 |
|
| 14.0.1 | 2012-07-17 |
| |
| 15.0 | 2012-08-28 | 15.0 |
|
| 15.0.1 | 2012-09-06 |
| |
| 16.0 | 2012-10-09 | 16.0 |
|
| 16.0.1 | 2012-10-11 |
| |
| 16.0.2 | 2012-10-26 |
| |
| 17.0 | 2012-11-20 | 17.0 |
|
| 17.0.1 | 2012-11-30 |
| |
| 17.0.2esr | 2013-01-08 |
| |
| 17.0.3esr | 2013-02-19 |
| |
| 17.0.4esr | 2013-03-07 |
| |
| 17.0.5esr | 2013-04-02 |
| |
| 17.0.6esr | 2013-05-14 |
| |
| 17.0.7esr | 2013-06-25 |
| |
| 17.0.8esr | 2013-08-06 |
| |
| 17.0.9esr | 2013-09-17 |
| |
| 17.0.10esr | 2013-10-29 |
| |
| 17.0.11esr | 2013-11-15 |
| |
| 18.0 | 2013-01-08 | 18.0 |
|
| 18.0.1 | 2013-01-18 |
| |
| 18.0.2 | 2013-02-05 |
| |
| 19.0 | 2013-02-19 | 19.0 |
|
| 19.0.1 | 2013-02-27 |
| |
| 19.0.2 | 2013-03-07 |
| |
| 20.0 | 2013-04-02 | 20.0 |
|
| 20.0.1 | 2013-04-11 |
| |
| 21.0 | 2013-05-14 | 21.0 |
|
| 22.0 | 2013-06-25 | 22.0 |
|
| 23.0 | 2013-08-06 | 23.0 |
|
| 23.0.1 | 2013-08-16 |
| |
| 24.0 | 2013-09-17 | 24.0 |
|
| 24.1.0esr | 2013-10-29 |
| |
| 24.1.1esr | 2013-11-15 |
| |
| 24.2.0esr | 2013-12-10 |
| |
| 24.3.0esr | 2014-02-04 |
| |
| 25.0 | 2013-10-29 | 25.0 |
|
| 25.0.1 | 2013-11-15 |
| |
| 26.0 | 2013-12-10 | 26.0 |
|
| 26.0.1 | 2013-12-20 |
| |
| 27.0 | 2014-02-04 | 27.0 |
|
| 27.0.1 | 2014-02-13 |
|
There we go. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're clearly unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages works. The table is already in the edit history of this article and no one is going to delete the article without moving it here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-colon or comma
"Former release; no longer supported" are clearly distinct and finite thoughts, independent from each other, but not complete sentences.
- http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/semicolon
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semicolon
- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/semicolon?q=semicolon
They should not be separated by commas, which are used to, among other things, seperate list items. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Links to latest ESR downloads
For some reason, symlinks to latest ESR releases downloads are left pointing to 24.3.0 instead of being updated to 24.4.0, so URLs such as https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest-esr/linux-x86_64/ are still pointing to 24.3.0. All that applies to various links in Firefox § OS support history section – should we update them to point to explicit version directories (https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/24.4.0esr/linux-x86_64/, for example), or wait for "latest-esr" symlinks to become updated? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just as a note, those symlinks seem to be Ok now. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Portal bar and URLs
@Dsimic: What you mean by visible and invisible URLs? IMO MOS:COMPUTING#Website_addresses applies to {{URL}} as well as to {{Official website}}. And {{Portal}}'s crashes the References layout on my 1280x1024px screen.
@Codename Lisa: You told me many things about MOS and layout problems. Do I have the right here? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 15:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello there! Regarding the URLs, let's start from a quote from the above linked MOS section:
Certain areas of Misplaced Pages such as infoboxes require website addresses (URL) to be exposed in print. To maintain readability and conciseness, certain parts of the web addresses may need to be hidden or their shorter forms used. However, the reader does not need to see all of these somewhat unappealing and hard-to-remember items, thanks to the web browsers and web servers' ability to infer them. In general, the following parts can be omitted.
- Based on that, removing protocol specifiers ("http://"), common host names ("www") and trailing slashes ("/") from URLs applies only when those URLs are visible on a rendered page, such as when used in infoboxes' "website" parameter. When URLs are specified in {{Official website}}, for example, the URL itself isn't visible on a rendered page. Even for infoboxes, it's better to use complete URLs and get them displayed through additional {{URL}} template. Makes sense?
- Regarding {{Portal}} vs. {{Portal bar}}, my opinion is that using {{Portal bar}} wastes vertical space which is premium in the today's widescreen era. You're right that it clashes with the "References" section below possibly reducing the number of displayed columns, however the recent typography refresh turned its 30em columns width into two columns displayed on 786px-wide screens, for example. Anyway, if you or other editors still find {{Portal bar}} to be a better solution, I'd be fine with that.
- Of course, I'm more than open for discussing this further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello guys.
- Here is what I think:
- URLs: This one is a little tricky. Dsimic is right that the criterion is MOS:COMPUTING is what's visible. However, a footnote in MOS:STABILITY says ArbCom has forbidden edits that make no difference and has treated obsessive compulsive edits with bans and blocks. In other words, if it works and looks the same, leave it alone. Neither of you must change {{official website}} into {{official website}}|http://www.firefox.com/ or vice versa and neither of you should revert it if somebody else did it between his edits. (A talk page notice may be okay, depending on situation.) So, both of you please do nothing about it anymore.
- Portal bars: Definitely Rezanansowy's edit, if I had to choose! I tried a 800×600 screen, a 1024×768 one and a 1600×900 one. In all cases, box intersects References section. As the width of the screen grows, the box bumps into the references, causing an unpleasant horizontal bar. I imagine the situation is alleviated on a 1920×1080 screen because of its enormous breadth but not everyone has such big screens and not everyone loves to read on that screen with browser maximized.
- Here is what I think:
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for an insight! I've edited the article so {{Portal bar}} is used. Regarding the URLs, I'd say there officially aren't two alternative styles for non-visible URLs, as MOS:WEBADDR says nothing about the URLs that aren't visible on rendered pages. Also, it's much better to include those elements; for example, not including the trailing slash in many cases generates an additional HTTP redirect whenever such URL is accessed. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Defective browser
Why is there no mention that Firefox is highly unstable and will repeatedly crash your computer if you have Windows 7? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Because there's no support for statements like that, however if you could provide a reliable source that supports your opinion, we could add it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Safe Browsing API
In Firefox, this stores a 'preferences' cookie on the computer, even if the user hasn't ever visited a Google site, furthermore, and according to the 'safebrowsing' API "The URLs to be looked up are not hashed so the server knows which URLs the API users have looked up". It is worth noting, that (like in Google Chrome or Chromium) although enabled by default, anti-phishing can be disabled in Firefox by going to Options > Preferences > Security and disabling "Block reported sites" and "Block reported web forgeries" checkboxes and then by restarting the browser. According to the Edward Snowden leaks, the NSA use this cookie to identify individuals (presumably with Google's consent).
Whoever removed it before, said it "advances a position", I cannot understand why they would say that because there is no position given on anything in these statements, nor one that I can see which is being advanced. Also the content has been appropriately referenced. J05HYYY (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the weasel word. J05HYYY (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear from the editor as well, but what I see is that advances two positions: 1) Firefox is not as secure as you'd think it is, and 2) it is part of some NSA conspiracy to report your name, address, SSN/SIN or other identifying information to them. The former may be true, but the latter is over-sold. They don't know who I am, only what I do. It does not give sufficient detail to inform the reader and leaves them with a feeling of insecurity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Hi
- First and most important of all, revert comes before the discussion. It is not the other way around. Most importantly, unreferenced contributions and original researches about living people are removed mercilessly and their removal is even exempt to WP:3RR rule. In this case, the black sheep is "presumably with Google's consent". In Misplaced Pages, we strictly don't presume, especially when the source says:
These specific slides do not indicate how the NSA obtains Google PREF cookies or whether the company cooperates in these programs.
- Second, the source does not explain whether the disabling of anti-phishing has any impact on the cookie that it stores. Is it deleted and not sent again? Why say this in the first place when it is against WP:NOTHOWTO? Third, the source given does not blames the anti-phishing entirely. In fact it says:
The agency's internal presentation slides, provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, show that when companies follow consumers on the Internet to better serve them advertising, the technique opens the door for similar tracking by the government.
- Overall, this paragraph blackballs Google and instructs users to lower their security.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Most importantly, unreferenced contributions and original researches about living people are removed mercilessly
- well this isn't unreferenced or original research or about living people.
In this case, the black sheep is "presumably with Google's consent".
- I'll remove that for you then.
Second, the source does not explain whether the disabling of anti-phishing has any impact on the cookie that it stores. Is it deleted and not sent again? Why say this in the first place when it is against WP:NOTHOWTO?
- disabling anti-phishing disables safe browsing, so no need for the cookie, but that's neither here nor there, you can't blame an edit for not adding information.
Overall, this paragraph blackballs Google and instructs users to lower their security.
- I think you're looking into it too deeply.
- At no point does this paragraph say whether it's a good thing to enable safe browsing or disable it, only that it could be disabled. If anything you seem to have a bias to want the user to keep safe browsing enabled, because it's you who seems to think it's a good thing to have safe browsing enabled, via anti-phishing (thus sending all your URLs for every webpage you visit to Google, then somehow to NSA). I myself simply feel it's up to the user to decide whether or not they want this feature, but to be well informed of it's positives and negatives via websites such as Misplaced Pages.
According to the 'safe browsing' API "The URLs to be looked up are not hashed so the server knows which URLs the API users have looked up". It also stores a 'preferences' cookie on the computer, even if the user hasn't ever visited a Google site. According to the Edward Snowden leaks, the NSA use this cookie to identify individuals. It is worth noting, that, although enabled by default, anti-phishing and thus 'safe browsing' can be disabled in Firefox by going to Options > Preferences > Security and disabling "Block reported sites" and "Block reported web forgeries" checkboxes and then by restarting the browser.
Would the above suit you better? J05HYYY (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's what we call WP:SYNTH (a form of original research): You took statements from different sources, put them together and made something none of the sources say, sneaking a couple of assumptions of yourself in between. Seriously, you play around with words and the only thing you do not address is my main concern.
- And the entire thing about not saying whether it is a good or bad thing to disable the phishing filter is what makes it weasel wordy. Did you just mention the disabling out of nowhere for no reason? In that case, delete, because of WP:IINFO. Or are you implying that disabling it does something? Then again, delete, because of weasel wordy nature.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are you trolling? Every point I made in the above was referenced. All of the references gave evidence to the points made. Nothing was strung together. Which exact part of the text do you think was made up, which assumptions, if any?
- I wrote that it could be disabled because of neutrality, giving the user the choice whether or not they want it enabled. I read "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and it talks of "Summary-only descriptions of works.", "Lyrics databases.", "Excessive listings of statistics." and "Exhaustive logs of software updates.". Also the references given are not from independent sources. So WP:IINFO does not apply to this edit in any way, shape or form.
- I think we can conclude this discussion, as your only objections to the proposed edit now seem to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please indent your messages properly and sign it. And not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. If you are unconvinced, you can invite additional input via WP:DR.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I forgot to sign. I don't think we need additional input yet, I'm just still left waiting for you to tell me (specifically), which parts of the edit you disagree with and why.J05HYYY (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Don't call those who object with you trolls. I appreciate Codename Lisa's edits and rational thought process: I did not read the linked sources and obviously Codename Lisa has. I defer to that editor on this.
- I also appreciate J05HYYY's additional and willingness to discuss. Other than what I stated above, I have no opinion, but it's clear that that this material is SYNTHESIS and should not be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Synthesis how? It's not original research - There are many sources pertaining to this, I just linked to a tiny fraction of them, so I don't understand why this edit shouldn't be accepted. Nobody, including Codename Lisa has objected to any specific points in this edit, which is why I asked if she was trolling.J05HYYY (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I forgot to sign. I don't think we need additional input yet, I'm just still left waiting for you to tell me (specifically), which parts of the edit you disagree with and why.J05HYYY (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Just coming here and saying "Nothing was strung together" does not make it true, because I am afraid from what I see, in fact it is so. For example, "According to the Edward Snowden leaks, the NSA use this cookie to identify individuals"; the source explicitly says that the cookie is not for identifying; rather, it is for finding someone who is already identified. (It uses a laser designator analogy.) So, you seriously might want to have a fresh set of eyes looking at it. Unfortunately, it also appears to me that all you did so far was trying to twist the meaning of what you read. For example, you nitpick on IINFO's example list, disregarding its lead that says "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context". In addition, whether you did intent to imply something is a entirely different matter than whether your context-free sentence ends up implying something. After all, there is so much contents about the anti-phishing mechanism and nothing about other cookies, which the source makes it a case from the beginning.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Again, your objection is false.
A slide from an internal NSA presentation indicating that the agency uses at least one Google cookie as a way to identify targets for exploitation. (Washington Post)
The slides also suggest that the agency is using these tracking techniques to help identify targets for offensive hacking operations.
According to the documents, the NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ, are using the small tracking files or "cookies" that advertising networks place on computers to identify people browsing the Internet.
they do contain numeric codes that enable Web sites to uniquely identify a person's browser.
- J05HYYY (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- The data is put into context, if you have anti-phishing enabled in FF, then you use 'safe browsing' and thus have the PREF cookie. Any other false objections? J05HYYY (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Don't put the data into context, let the data speak for themselves and let the experts speak for themselves. Don't draw conclusions. That's what we're saying. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- You spend way too much effort into falsifying sentences to suit your own need and calling me a liar. Did you even read what you quote? Number One: You are abusing on the ambiguous meaning of "identify". Except the source does clarify:
The NSA's use of cookies isn't a technique for sifting through vast amounts of information to find suspicious behavior; rather, it lets NSA home in on someone already under suspicion - akin to when soldiers shine laser pointers on a target to identify it for laser-guided bombs.
- ...which the same thing that Walter said, without even looking at the source. Number Two: All the while this source does not peep about Firefox. Number Three: How all this going to justify the askewed point of view resulted from leaning too much on vilifying a security feature of Firefox, while millions of other forms of cookies are and may be used for the same purpose? Your own quotation reads: "cookies that advertising networks place on computers".
- My opinion about the article remains what it was. If you think you can really put up a discussion that hold water, take it to WP:DRN; but mind you, they can drop your case and take disciplinary actions, should you resort to gaming the system like this.
- Some regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: You know, if he hadn't made all these strange claims and insinuations, he could have added some decent sentences to the article; in fact we still can do. The DarkReading source from InformationWeek is rather convincing, though without conspiracy theories. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, but as it stood, it was not acceptable. Perhaps we could craft something that might be more NPOV and less SYNTHESIS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- You read my mind. Only our NPOV effort would go into not saying it is "but nothing to worry about" as opposed to J05HYYY's doomsday version. And no more interpretation of "PREF cookie" = "the PREF cookie".
- I'd wait to see if we have a DRN case, so we can discuss this as a compromise there. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think I probably will take this to DRN, as you are repeatedly removing my edits without sufficient justification as to why. I tried to talk to you to resolve any issues in the edit, and you didn't manage to come up with any valid reasons as to why an edit along the proposed lines shouldn't be allowed, even when I removed any conflicting pieces. Besides this, you have attempted to find faults within the sources, which weren't there and keep on reciting templates which do not apply to the text, as justification. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Walter and Lisa was one in the same person. As Walter seems to agree with whatever Lisa is saying, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary and both remove the edits, with different accounts to avoid being banned with the removal rule. Personally I can only hope DRN makes the right decision to allow the text and to ban the both of you, for A) colluding and B) destroying the neutrality of Misplaced Pages through what appears to be, blatant censorship. 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs)
- That would be great. It's not censorship, but you'll be told that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think I probably will take this to DRN, as you are repeatedly removing my edits without sufficient justification as to why. I tried to talk to you to resolve any issues in the edit, and you didn't manage to come up with any valid reasons as to why an edit along the proposed lines shouldn't be allowed, even when I removed any conflicting pieces. Besides this, you have attempted to find faults within the sources, which weren't there and keep on reciting templates which do not apply to the text, as justification. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Walter and Lisa was one in the same person. As Walter seems to agree with whatever Lisa is saying, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary and both remove the edits, with different accounts to avoid being banned with the removal rule. Personally I can only hope DRN makes the right decision to allow the text and to ban the both of you, for A) colluding and B) destroying the neutrality of Misplaced Pages through what appears to be, blatant censorship. 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs)
- "Phoenix 0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Phoenix 0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Phoenix 0.3 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Phoenix 0.4 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Phoenix 0.5 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firebird 0.6 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- Mullen, Edward. "Mozilla Password Viewing". Archived from the original on June 24, 2007. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firebird 0.7 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 0.8 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 0.9 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 1.0 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 1.0.8 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.12 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 2.0 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.20 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 3 Release Notes". Mozilla. June 17, 2008. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 3.0.19 Release Notes". Mozilla. March 30, 2010. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 3.5 Release Notes". Mozilla. June 30, 2009. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 3.5.19 Release Notes". Mozilla. April 28, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 3.6 Release Notes". Mozilla. January 21, 2010. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 3.6.4 Release Notes". Mozilla. June 22, 2010. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 3.6.28 Release Notes". Mozilla. March 13, 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 4 Release Notes". Mozilla. March 22, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 4.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. April 28, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Firefox 5 Available for Download". Mashable. June 21, 2011. Retrieved June 22, 2011.
- "News: Firefox 5 heading your way". Hexus.net. 20 June 2011. Retrieved June 20, 2011.
- "Firefox 5 for developers". MDC Docs Firefox 5 for developers. Mozilla Developer Network. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
- "Firefox Beta release notes". Mozilla Foundation. Retrieved 17 June 2011.
- Marshall, Gary (June 22, 2011). "Hands on: Firefox 5 review". Application News. TechRadar UK. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- "Mozilla Firefox Release Notes". Mozilla.org. June 21, 2011. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
- "Gecko versions and application versions". MDN. Retrieved 2013-11-18.
- "Firefox 5 minor update for Mac coming soon". blizzard. July 8, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 5.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. July 11, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Bug List (fixed bugs for Firefox 6)". Bugzilla.mozilla.org. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 6.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. August 30, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 6.0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla. September 6, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 7.0 Release Notes". Mozilla. 2011-09-27. Retrieved 2012-02-07.
- "Mozilla Firefox 7.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. September 29, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox Release Notes". Mozilla. 2011-11-08. Retrieved 2012-02-08.
- "Mozilla Firefox 8.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. November 21, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox Release Notes". Mozilla. 2011-12-20. Retrieved 2012-02-08.
- "Mozilla pushes out Firefox 9.0.1". ZDNet. December 22, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox Release Notes". Mozilla. 2012-01-31. Retrieved 2012-02-08.
- "Mozilla Firefox Release Notes". Mozilla. 2012-02-10. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla. February 16, 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. March 13, 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.3 Release Notes". Mozilla. 2012-03-13. Retrieved 2012-02-08.
- "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.4 Release Notes". Mozilla. April 24, 2012. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.5 Release Notes". Mozilla. 2012-06-05. Retrieved 2012-06-06.
- "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.6 Release Notes". Mozilla. July 17, 2012. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.7 Release Notes". Mozilla. 2012-08-28. Retrieved July 17, 2012.
- "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. 2012-10-26. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. 2012-10-26. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. 2012-10-26. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. 2012-11-20. Retrieved 2012-11-20.
- "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. 2013-01-08. Retrieved 2013-01-08.
- "Mozilla Firefox 11 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-03-13. Retrieved 2012-03-16.
- "Mozilla Firefox 12 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. April 24, 2012. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 13 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-06-05. Retrieved 2012-06-06.
- "Mozilla Firefox 13.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-06-15. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
- "Mozilla Firefox 14 Aurora Release Notes". Mozilla.org. Retrieved April 27, 2012.
- Brinkmann, Martin (July 17, 2012). "Firefox 14.0.1 available, Why there won't be a Firefox 14.0 release". ghacks.net. Retrieved July 17, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 14.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. July 17, 2012. Retrieved July 17, 2012.
- "Mozilla Firefox 15.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-08-28. Retrieved 2012-08-28.
- "Mozilla Firefox 15.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-09-06. Retrieved 2012-09-10.
- "Mozilla Firefox 16.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-10-09. Retrieved 2012-10-10.
- "Mozilla Firefox 16.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. Retrieved 2012-10-11.
- "Mozilla Firefox 16.0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-11-20. Retrieved 2012-11-20.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-11-30. Retrieved 2012-12-01.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.2 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2013-01-08. Retrieved 2013-01-08.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.3 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2013-02-19. Retrieved 2013-02-19.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.4 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2013-03-07. Retrieved 2013-03-12.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.5 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-04-02.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.6 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. May 14, 2013. Retrieved May 14, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.7 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. June 25, 2013. Retrieved June 25, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.8 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. August 6, 2013. Retrieved August 6, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.9 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. September 17, 2013. Retrieved September 17, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.10 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. October 29, 2013. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.11 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. November 15, 2013. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 18.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. January 8, 2013. Retrieved January 8, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 18.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. January 18, 2013. Retrieved January 21, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 18.0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 5, 2013. Retrieved February 7, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 19.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 19, 2013. Retrieved February 19, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 19.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 27, 2013. Retrieved March 8, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 19.0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. March 7, 2013. Retrieved March 8, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 20.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. April 2, 2013. Retrieved April 2, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 20.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. April 11, 2013. Retrieved April 13, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 21.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. May 14, 2013. Retrieved May 14, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 22.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. June 25, 2013. Retrieved June 25, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 23.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. August 06, 2013. Retrieved August 09, 2013.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - "Mozilla Firefox 23.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. August 16, 2013. Retrieved August 20, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 24.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. September 17, 2013. Retrieved September 17, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox ESR 24.1.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. October 29, 2013. Retrieved October 30, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox ESR 24.1.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. November 15, 2013. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox ESR 24.2.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. December 10, 2013. Retrieved December 11, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox ESR 24.3.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 4, 2014. Retrieved February 4, 2014.
- "Mozilla Firefox 25.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. October 29, 2013. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 25.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. November 15, 2013. Retrieved November 15, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 26.0. Release Notes". Mozilla.org. December 10, 2013. Retrieved December 10, 2013.
- "Mozilla Firefox 26.0.1 Mobile Release Notes". Mozilla.org. December 20, 2013. Retrieved February 4, 2014.
- "Mozilla Firefox 27.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 4, 2014. Retrieved February 4, 2014.
- "Mozilla Firefox 27.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 13, 2014. Retrieved February 14, 2014.
- "Safe Browsing API — Google Developers". Developers.google.com. Retrieved 2014-06-10.
- http://ashkansoltani.org/2012/02/25/cookies-from-nowhere/
- "NSA uses Google cookies to pinpoint targets for hacking". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2014-06-10.
- http://www.darkreading.com/risk/google-safe-browsing-feature-could-compromise-privacy/d/d-id/1131636
- "How does built-in Phishing and Malware Protection work? | Mozilla Support". Support.mozilla.org. Retrieved 2014-06-10.
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Internet articles
- High-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles
- B-Class software articles
- Top-importance software articles
- B-Class software articles of Top-importance
- B-Class Computing articles
- Mid-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles
- B-Class Apple Inc. articles
- Low-importance Apple Inc. articles
- WikiProject Apple Inc. articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists